Kos has a diary up with some suggestions for the Bernie camp based on his analysis of the race and relative support among communities of color. I’m posting a comment I placed in that diary with very minor modifications:
Kos,
Respectfully. You are comparing apples and broccoli by using the Bernie/Hillary race to produce this “lesson”.
You’ve got candidate One:
with universal name recognition married to a former president who lived in the South was first lady of a state with a significant AA population who had the entire Democratic establishment behind her who has previously run a national campaign who has been running for national office for 10 years during those 10 years, has had a $2bn dollar foundation behind her to organize events, corral support and provide opportunities for political supporters to get in front of donorsAnd candidate Two:
with very limited name recognition senator from a small state who lives in the North in a state with virtually no significant AA population who had the entire Democratic establishment arrayed against him, partly because he was up until a few months ago an independent had never run a national campaign before had never raised funds even remotely close to the numbers required for a presidential campaign.The second candidate has been a reliable ally of PoC and minorities throughout his public career. He had gone so far as to create the Congressional Progressive Caucus upon his arrival in Congress, specifically so the Congressional Black Caucus which represented progressive ideas would have allies. It didn’t exist till Bernie got there in 1991. Today it counts over half the CBC among its members. Bernie is the only Senator in the CPC. He served as its convener and first chairperson. He had previously campaigned for and helped Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition.
So candidate Two did indeed build links to communities of color, and did in fact discuss the issues you highlight. Candidate Two articulated and presented a comprehensive platform on racial justice months before candidate One got around to it. The same is true for issues around undocumented immigrants.
The reliable support of the second candidate has gone largely unremarked in the mainstream media through most of this cycle, while a narrative to create a wedge with PoC has been advanced.
We also have to note a regional preference for candidate One. In Massachusetts, Bernie got 41% of the non-white vote as per exit polls which was 15% of the total voters (4% black, 6% latino, 4% asian).
Southern non-white voters are conscious of the fact that their switch towards a non-white candidate eight years ago cost candidate One the primary and a significant number have expressed the sentiment that “It’s her time”. Southern voters in general, including Democrats, skew towards the religious and conservative end of the spectrum. Candidate Two is neither, whereas candidate One has reminded voters during the campaign that she does share their commitment to religion (as opposed to spirituality) and is the more conservative (as opposed to radical) candidate.
Perhaps what you’re really saying is that no person can hope to win the Democratic presidential nomination if they do not come from the South or have significant support down there. In which case, I will only remind you that we are a national party, not a regional one.
Your analysis of this race is mistaken even if your proscriptions for a future candidate or movement are worth adhering to. For a candidate with his non-national profile, and institutional handicaps, Bernie has run the right kind of campaign. For a progressive candidate with Bernie’s profile, whose opponent does not enjoy the institutional and geographic characteristics Hillary enjoys, this would not be a discussion.
I would also point out that your argument, and others like it, feed false notions about Bernie. That he has:
ignored the issues faced by PoC. failed to build links to PoC. failed to be a reliable ally for minorities throughout his entire career.Or, the guilt by association claim that his supporters share those traits.
This primary is to a great extent, a game of perception. At the very least, you should acknowledge that you do not want to feed these mistaken perceptions.
Bottom line, no white-dominated liberal movement will succeed when 40 percent of Democrats are people of color. And people of color will be reluctant to join a movement led by little-known whites. [...]
So why am I harping on this? Because I want to build an effective movement, and the Sanders campaign didn’t prove to be an effective vehicle for it. Yet the goal is one worth pursuing, so we need that movement.
If you are so eager to see an effective movement, why the FUCK haven’t you joined the best chance we’ve had for one in a generation and helped fix the problem you claim to have found, that it is “led by little known whites”?
Because if “well known” names like you won’t join and help lead it, don’t bother calling us “little known” people out for trying to push it along with whatever allies we can find.
In all seriousness, it is still not too late. You can join us now and help level the enormous institutional disadvantages that Bernie’s campaign and the progressive/liberal movement faces, even within the Democratic party.
And before you jump on me with bullshit about questioning a “person of color” about who they support. This is one person of color asking another to support Bernie Sanders. So set your sanctimonious judgment aside.