In 2013, the average White family had a net worth of $134,000; the average Black family had $11,000, and the average Latino family had $13,900. This disparity is a result of pervasive systemic racism — it can’t be explained by purely economic factors. Ensconced in tiny Vermont, Sanders has been completely focused on economic determinism, while Clinton deeply understands that the problem of racism exists on its own. This is substantiated by the following quote from the linked article:
“Under Bill Clinton, median household income grew by 25 per cent in African-American households, at double the speed as it did for households nationwide. Unemployment among African Americans fell by six points, against a three-point drop among the population as a whole. It was the first time in American history that the fruits of economic boom were truly felt in black households.“
That is, Clinton comes from a background that actually delivered for minority households, while Sanders offers talk. The important takeaway from all this is that Black support for Clinton is based on calm rationality, and not HRC’s ability to shine them on.
Originally shared by Steve S
And then there’s the supporter problem. Throughout the race, there has been an attitude among some Sanders supporters that either condescends or ignores black voters. That emails to say that of course, black voters might not be going for Sanders just yet, but as soon as they “listen to his message” they will be won over. That says, effectively, that Clintonism is a state of sin from which black voters will shortly be uplifted. Or, writes, as the Guardian did, that “the Clinton machine” has “a hold” on African-American voters, who didn’t vote for Clinton in 2008 and are no more in “the hold” of a “machine” as white liberal graduates – who have voted for Sanders at every election he has fought since 1991 – are for Sanders. That describes Clinton as the candidate of “corporate America” and ignores the fact that she is also the candidate of black America. That describes Sanders as the “candidate of the future”, when the future of the Democratic Party increasingly rests on the same demographics that are least friendly towards Sanders.