Calling it now: Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What happened is that White liberals REALLY didn't like being called out, and they didn't like that Sanders dropped the ball, so they're digging and screeching as much as they can to try to discredit the BLM protesters, instead of doing the smart thing and embracing  the message as a wake-up call.

That Sanders called the protest "disappointing" turns my stomach.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I love all the White men on Facebook screaming about how the protesters were just attention-seekers, "bad for the movement", uneducated, unstrategic, and my favorite, that they "need to think smarter". Gotta tell those uppity Black women how they SHOULD BEHAVE!

Except that it had exactly the desired result, which BLM activists have been politely asking Bernie for for weeks, which is that he directly address the issue of racially-driven police brutality on his platform.

[Edward Longpork]

I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/why-are-black-lives-matter-activists-targeting-bernie-sanders-because-he-gets-it-almost/

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I agree with you - I think they poked a soft spot which Sanders needed to firm up. After the first round of disruptions, Sanders focused on economic inequality. But that missed the point, police brutality happens to well-off / college educated people too.

Now, for the first time, he's talking about police reform. Good! Somebody had to give him a black eye and now he's stronger for it.

Yep. He fucked up, but he seems to have learned from it. He thought he could ignore racial issues, which is a common theme with well-intentioned white people... just pretend that racial issues are really economic issues, and that way you don't have to deal with the icky feeling that comes from looking racial issues in the face.

Conspiracy theorists are floating the rumor that the protesters are secretly just trying  to undermine Sanders. Because, well, that's more palatable than facing the reality that the protesters had a fucking point.

[Cain]

"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.

No, they didn't. Did you see the press release? Or the results of the protest? And the claims that one of the protesters is a Palin supporter are bullshit, too. Christian? SURPRISE! A Black Christian woman who is passionate about black lives? GO FIGURE.

I know the initial Seattle BLM page disavowed their actions, but said page is run by a single person (yet again proving the hashtag/leaderless activism point), but the posts I saw on Twitter and other social media outside of Seattle were largely saddened by the choice of tactics and language used by the activists.  For a leaderless movement, there will never be official disavowal, but what I saw looked like general sympathy with their motives combined with general antipathy towards the means.  Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong feeds?

I also literally woke up 10 minutes before I wrote that, so I'm not going to pass judgement on the whole Palin thing before I get more info.  It's interesting, if true, but not indicative of anything on its own.

[Doktor Howl]

Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"If Sanders can't stand up to some crazy-ass offshoot of BlackLivesMatter, how can he stand up to Putin?  When the 3am call comes, will Sanders just give the stage over to ISIS?"

Interesting stuff:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/08/blm-activist-who-shut-down-sanders-is-radical-christian-sarah-palin-supporter/

If it gains any traction, I'll have to re-revise the odds.  Some.

Hmmm.  I do know BLM basically disavowed the Seattle protestors, and no surprise why (pro-tip: attacking the politician most receptive to your message and his supporters will probably not help matters).

However, this once again shows the limits of hashtag activism, that any idiot can set up a local movement, affiliate it with your own, and infect it with their own dumbassery.  If BLM had a centralized organization, a press office, PR manager etc...the first thing any journalist with a lick of sense would do would be to contact them and say "these idiots say they're your idiots.  Do you own these idiots?"  And then can turn around and say "no they're free-range, organic idiots" and everyone can go back to what they were doing before.

No, they didn't. Did you see the press release? Or the results of the protest? And the claims that one of the protesters is a Palin supporter are bullshit, too. Christian? SURPRISE! A Black Christian woman who is passionate about black lives? GO FIGURE.

I know the initial Seattle BLM page disavowed their actions, but said page is run by a single person (yet again proving the hashtag/leaderless activism point), but the posts I saw on Twitter and other social media outside of Seattle were largely saddened by the choice of tactics and language used by the activists.  For a leaderless movement, there will never be official disavowal, but what I saw looked like general sympathy with their motives combined with general antipathy towards the means.  Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong feeds?

I also literally woke up 10 minutes before I wrote that, so I'm not going to pass judgement on the whole Palin thing before I get more info.  It's interesting, if true, but not indicative of anything on its own.

There is definitely some very different information circulating online. A lot of people were VERY fast and VERY vocal about trying to distance themselves from those two activists, who are in fact the main BLM Seattle organizers. It was almost like a reflex; JUMP BACK FROM THE UPPITY BLACK WOMEN! OH GOD NO WE DON'T CONDONE THAT KIND OF THING! And besides, they're RELIGIOUS and maybe even NOT DEMOCRATS, not like us good, respectful, enlightened and polite Atheist BLM hashtaggers! So despite being black, and having lives, they aren't REAL Black Lives Matter activists!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You might say I'm a little disgusted.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.

What you seem to be saying is exactly what I was getting a sense for in the general reaction to the activists; most white Liberals are secretly racist as fuck.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Basically, that if he includes racial equality and ending racially-based police violence in his platform, white Liberal Democrats won't vote for him, because that doesn't address their concerns.

That's also kind of the subtext of the "the way the protesters pushed their message will hurt the Black Lives Matter movement"; basically, black people being impolite will cause white liberals to turn away in disgust. Which, fortunately, seems not to actually be the case, but tells me a LOT about the people saying it.

[Doktor Howl]

Doesn't matter.  He's doomed.  He needs 95% of the "middle" dem voters (30% total) plus his base plus 95% of the Black vote.  He can't do both.

To have a prayer with the middle, he has to stick to economic justice issues.  That's what they want to hear (think Carville/Begalla during the 1992 campaign "It's the economy") and any deviation from that message is going to kill him.

But if he DOES stick to that message, it's going to cost him 15-20% minimum of the Black vote.

So he can't get the numbers no matter which way he goes.  And so the only guy willing to take on the banks and the polluters and the Koch brothers is eliminated by his own people.  Which is so friggin' predictable that, if this were a novel, I'd stop reading it now and throw it away.

By contrast, HRC needs about 50% of that middle - and the best numbers say she already has 60% - and about 20% of the Black vote, which she's going to get easily.  BLM won't be able to get to the stage (not at a Hillary rally, no fucking way), and when she steps out in January, she gets the nomination without giving a fuck about Blacks or the middle class (let alone the working class).  At best, nothing will change.  At worst, she loses to the clown car and EVERYTHING changes.

So while we slide into the pink, dead ocean of the future, we can all bitch about how "all politicians are the same", and how Senator Sanders is worse than George Wallace.

What you seem to be saying is exactly what I was getting a sense for in the general reaction to the activists; most white Liberals are secretly racist as fuck.

I don't pretend to understand Black folks.  I am not Black.  But I DO understand white folks, at least to some degree, and the number one thing that American whites want is for tomorrow to be the same as yesterday, even if that means compromising their principles, which by no means are even remotely important as their sense of entitlement (when taken as a demographic).

White folks know they're doomed, and they're willing to listen to change.  Very narrow change.  Very very narrow change.  They want to hear about the economy, because the ass-fucking has finally chafed them to the point that they can't ignore it. 

But if the message widens, even to include things they generally agree with (BLM, for example), then suddenly the herd spooks and Senator Sanders is maybe a little too radical.  Not because Blacks are involved, the same would happen if he brought up the murder rate among transgendered people.  So they clench up and vote the "safe" way, which is to say Clinton.

Do I agree with this mindset?  No.  Is it a political reality?  Of course it is.

Last night in Portland, Sanders had his handlers/intro speakers talk a great deal about BLM.  Then he mentioned it, then moved on to his central message and stayed there.  That's a hell of a lot more than is going to come out of HRC (who, again, doesn't need the majority of the Black vote and doesn't care, because Iran needs a paddlin' and contracts need to be signed), and certainly more than the clown car is going to say (on account of they actively hate persons of color, Black, Hispanic, whatever).

Is it good enough?  No.  Will it have to do?  You decide.

[Doktor Howl]

That's also kind of the subtext of the "the way the protesters pushed their message will hurt the Black Lives Matter movement"; basically, black people being impolite will cause white liberals to turn away in disgust. Which, fortunately, seems not to actually be the case, but tells me a LOT about the people saying it.

Impolite has nothing to do with it.  Black has nothing to do with it.

Seizing the stage is always considered political hooliganism, and always has been.  Remember Palin at the 2008 debates?  "No, I don't want to talk about THAT, I want to talk about THIS."  She hijacked the debates and lost 15% in 10 minutes, among conservatives, who are more likely than liberals to tolerate hooliganism.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So Sanders was doomed before, and he's doomed now. And?

[Cainad (dec.)]

There is something really nasty about the "support for your side is conditional, based on politeness" narrative...

I'll admit that my immediate response was "why the FUCK are they doing this to the one candidate who seems most likely to be receptive to your message." But, I guess he really WAS receptive to their message, in spite of that?

I dunno. My gut reaction sure felt a lot like standard white, educated liberal hand-wringing, and it's hard for me to shake that impression. But my gut is for processing shit, not politics, so maybe it demands re-examination.

My support for things like Black Live Matter (and the understanding that shit like #AllLivesMatter is a way of hijacking the message to render it meaningless) is definitely not conditional based on politeness. This event doesn't make me want to turn against it. But I'm struggling with trying to figure out if it was the politically astute thing to do.