Clinton: Half of Trump supporters fall into `basket of deplorables’
Hillary Clinton, noting she was being “grossly generalistic” at a New York fundraiser Friday, didn’t have very nice things to say about Donald Trump’s supporters, which numbered 13.3 million in the Republican primaries.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?”she told the crowd, which reacted with laughter and applause. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.
—snip—
I’m sorry…I really am…but Hillary Clinton and her team simply reek of the worst kind of upper middle class white entitlement!!! Has she no one to advise her that throwing white American middle and working class Trump supporters under her bus in a container marked “deplorables” is roughly akin to Trump’s earlier remarks about Mexican immigrants.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. 6/16/15
Only Clinton’s gaffe is worse. Much worse politically.
Why? How?
Like this:
1-Trump wasn’t likely to get a huge latino vote anyway. As a political calculation, his statement won him more voters than he lost.
And even worse…(politically speaking)
2-HRC needs working class/middle class white undecideds and independents. If she and her brain trust think that she doesn’t, they are in for a rude awakening. Is it possible for someone of a given race to be racist against that race? Sure. Self-hating Jews are one example of a meme like that. People like Ben Carson are another. The “house negro” meme.
Hillary Clinton has now opened up a third.
Plantation-owner whites.
Sheesh!!!
Tone deaf like a motherfucker!!!
And the choice of the word “deplorables”!!!
Who does she think she is, Margaret fucking Dumont?
They are deplorables, sir!!! Every last one of them!!!
Lord!!!
I mean…even it it were true!!! (Which it is not.)
Watch the polls this week.
Watch.
Y’all centrist/leftiness/PermaGov supporters done picked the wrong center. You were off by a country mile.
Bet on it.
Unbelievable.
Watch.
AG
Whitetitlement-fueled cries of centrist outrage?
Feel free.
I do.
Y’all done fucked up!!!
Watch.
AG
Feel more “at large, on the run” than free.
Politico:
I repeat:
“The event, a gala for the group LGBT for Hillary at Cipriani Wall Street that featured Barbara Streisand…”
I mean…c’mon, folks!!! How are undecided middle Americans going to read this sentence/view this whole scene? They’re not all that keen on the whole gay thing; they are absolutely livid at Wall Street, and Barbra Streisand is so…what is the the opposite of “nouveau riche?” “Old news,” I guess. These voters aren’t listening to her. They don’t care whether she sings or dies.
Plus…I got yer “Cipriani Wall Street”.
Right here!!!
Yessir, folks…she’s a woman of the people, alright.
The rich, old, white people!!!
Lord help us…
They’re fucking amateurs, these HRC campaign managers. Lifelong DC revolving door bureaucrats who don’t know their ass from a working class salary. Debbie Wasserman Schultz redux, the lot of them. Talk about “the common touch!!!”
Sad.
Meanwhile, back at the Mar El Lago Ranch…
Reuters, Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:11am EDT:
Man…this is looking more and more like a blowout!!!
Buckle your seat belts. The next two months are going to be a rough ride.
For everybody.
Watch.
Later…gotta go play at a celebration of the great jazz musician Phil Woods’s life with a really fine band.
AG
Unfortunately, DWS won her primary. OTOH, I don’t regret the money I sent to Canova as I do the money I sent to Sanders. Why? Because Canova didn’t wind up endorsing DWS and urging people to vote for her. He was beaten but he didn’t surrender. If his campaign has debts, I’ll send him some more money. If sanders has debts, he can ask Her Highness for the money.
Way too soon to tell. At the moment, a lot more lemonade can be made out of the bag of lemons Sanders’ supporters were handed than from the Canova lemons.
Moving on to the GE, it makes no difference in FL CD 23 if Canova does or doesn’t endorse DWS. What Canova demonstrated, with a lot of money for a House primary race, is that he was able to hold onto the FL CD 23 Sanders’ voters from the FL Presidential primary to the FL statewide primary. As Canova’s showing will have no near-term impact on DWS or her DC buddies, the go-forward question is if and what Canova does next. If DWS is handed a plum HRC admin job, will Canova run in a special election to fill her seat and if so, will he be well-positioned enough to win? Or will the FL and national Democratic Party bring in a ringer that can defeat him again? And if DWS doesn’t vacate her seat, what does Canova do next?
Just as none of us knew in real time how the Obama administration thwarted and impeded the Senate commission on CIA torture, we don’t know what behind the scenes pressure was put on Sanders. Perhaps all he got for his endorsement was a seat at the Dem platform table. If so, he calculated that it was worth it. I’d probably disagree because that platform will mean next to nothing to an HRC administration, but her team did fight hard to keep stuff out of it; so, there is recognition that it’s not totally meaningless, but as changing the dialogue is a long-term proposition, we won’t know for some time if Sanders made the right call.
Whether Sanders got it as a concession or just took it upon himself to grab it, he remains the only fallback nominee should that be needed. Tres clever on his part.
Sanders is laying a bit low at the moment and for good reason if I’m beginning to read a few things correctly. He knows that he can’t browbeat his supporters to fall in line with HRC. But he does still have some power. How much and how valuable that would be to team HRC will become clearer within the next three weeks. Will say more as the pattern becomes clearer to me.
Hope you’ll comment on http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/9/10/114559/094/7#7.
I could have fleshed it out into a diary but got too depressed.
Wouldn’t the Democrat’s fallback candidate be Kaine, rather than Sanders?
In answer to your question, not before election day. Interestingly enough, that’s never occurred for a presidential nominee and only one VP nominee. Nobody has any idea how it would be handled because technically only the delegates to the DNC convention have the power to select the nominee from among those that have been nominated. Sanders was nominated but doesn’t have enough delegate votes. Kaine hasn’t been nominated. So, a logical speculation (not that logic prevails among the Dem PTB) would be some form of a delegate gathering. Could be by teleconference. Then a decision would have to be made as to limiting the vote to those already in nomination, in which case it’s Sanders or nobody, or open the nomination to others before voting. If they go with the latter and Kaine gets the nod, it would be worse than ’68 because it wouldn’t even pretend to have followed any rules.
Will respond to your other comment after I’ve thought through a couple of things.
From WAPO:
Could it be because…he either doesn’t have those “historic weaknesses” or he has them but he also has anti-historic…that is, new…strengths?
Wouldn’t that be special !!!???
Hmmmm…
The rest of the article is equally deaf/dumb/blind/tone deaf to what is…and has been…happening since Trump exploded onto the national scene 15 months ago. This is to be expected from WAPO…it’s not a newspaper, it’s currently a DemRat campaign broadside because that’s the way the PermaGov fix was supposed to go.
Now?
HMMMMMmmmm…!!!
They’d better get it together, and soon.
Or else…
Bet on it.
AG
The only US Presidents that had no experience in elected politics or were an Army General were Taft and Hoover. That is not a comforting thought and even so, both of them were cabinet officers and so had had experience dealing with Congress and the bureaucracy.
The ex-Generals were Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower. Eisenhower was at least a diplomat and had considerable skill bringing people like De Gaulle and Montgomery into the fold. Taylor’s two year Presidency was undistinguished and the corrupt professional politicians robbed the country blind under Grant.
Similar complaint against Stein. Her VP pick does not instill confidence just like Trump’s Pence.
Clinton is inept and corrupt to the core. Kaine is DLC through and through although apparently a competent Governor. We should hope for a massive stroke on Hillary’s inaugural day.
Johnson and Weld are former Governors that should be expected to have decent political skills (but remember Palin!). However, they believe in having no business regulation at all! Want some melamine in you baby food?
How about wood alcohol in your whiskey?
NO ONE FOR PRESIDENT! There is no lesser evil. They are all Evil or Incompetent. I’d go with incompetent except we wind up with a black racist as VP, a heartbeat from the Presidency, or a man obsessed with women’s plumbing (and in a worse way than WJC). Best bet is Kaine succeeding to dead Hillary’s seat and he wold have massive sympathy from the American people as Johnson did. Stein or Trump. Heaven help us all!
Mostly agree. Some quibbles.
Kaine was Gov VA for four years, one term. There’s no lifetime term limit for the VA Gov but they cannot serve any consecutive terms. Johnson and Weld were both two term governors and haven’t heard that either weren’t competent. An accomplishment for both of them to win two terms as Republicans in their home states. Don’t know about Johnson, but as governor Weld fit right in the mold of a standard issue Rockefeller type Republican. Not sure why these two old guys have become Libertarians; it appeals most to young, wannabe macho guys and anti-feminist women (a much smaller group) until they grow up. Don’t dispute anything else you said about this duo.
Why single out Stein as having zero public office office experience? Trump has none either and unlike Stein, he’s never bothered to inform himself and have considered positions on public policy. In a better political climate, we would never have to consider anyone for POTUS that doesn’t have solid experience in government, particularly federal government.
Governors that land in the WH are almost or completely dependent on friends, party apparatchiks, and “perma-gov” denizens and have no personal ability to assess the work of any of them. Ford wasn’t the brightest bulb, but all his years in DC gave him a leg up on Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GWB. Yet, years of DC experience doesn’t speak to the quality of that experience. That’s where looking at the committees they’ve served on and their contributions to those committees and legislation in general comes in. Are they public employee workhorses, lazy backbenchers, or preening for a presidential run. On that measure IMO, Gore and Sanders were the most qualified recent candidates. Kerry and Obama were more qualified than the random, intelligent, and educated person, but not by all that much more.
What Stein lacks most of all is long-term, experienced, and skilled associates and a party that would have her back in some tough situations. Jimmy Carter only had the third one and that isn’t anywhere close to enough. (Trump lacks the first, on the second he has nothing but the dregs, and as to the third, he’d have to watch his own back and front against his party associates.)
As for administrative skills, a decent measure is the campaign they organize and run. Reagan and GWB were puppets; so, neither did that. Gore was surprisingly not very competent at that. HRC may be worse than Gore. Kerry’s primary campaign was pathetic, but he got bailed out and there was enough skill in the party to get him through the general, but it was never more than a generic Dem campaign operation. Obama gets a pass on this from me, but Sanders, who unlike the others didn’t begin formulating his organization two years before announcing his candidacy as most do, demonstrated the best personal administrative skills. He also demonstrated the folly of deferring too much to his spouse in the two years before beginning his campaign. A fail on being unable to release his tax returns when they were asked for which should never be a surprise to any candidate since 1992, and there’s a word for every candidate that couldn’t present his and his spouse’s full tax returns, it’s loser.
Agree that none of the four candidates satisfy my vote FOR preference. Nor is there a strategic option. Blank is no message at all. I’m beginning to consider Stein as a weak message vote. What I don’t like about it is that is that the Green party would take it as an endorsement of what they’ve been doing which couldn’t be further off the mark. So, I remain undecided.
Didn’t intend to single out Stein for no public experience. I thought Trump was obvious.
Thank you for the always insightful analysis.
Who do you see as RR’s puppetmaster? Nancy?
Nancy was RR’s minder. The puppetmasters were the Republican Old Guard — same as always. The big money corporate and special interest sector that have their operatives in key positions in Congress, the MIC, and among the for hire election specialists. Most carry over from one administration to the next, but a few are strictly Republican or Democratic administration carry-overs. They crop up as Chief of Staff and cabinet appointees.
Reagan: Schultz, Regan, Baker
Baker was the RR confidant that lived on through two more GOP administrations. Rumsfeld and Cheney lived on through Ford (lower level in the Nixon administration but Watergate cleaned out enough of the higher levels that there wasn’t much competition), GHWB, and GWB.
Here’s a later Washington Post article that should send shivers down the spines of the HRC campaign staff:
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/10/republicans-think-hillary-clinton-just-mad
e-her-own-47-percent-gaffe-did-she?wpisrc=nl_p1wemost-partner-1&wpmm=1
The “basket of deplorables” statement could bring back memories of Rommney’s big gaffe.
They hope. They’re sort of overlooking the fact that Romney’s opponent hadn’t been out there dismissing and disparaging various factions in the electorate. It didn’t help Mitt but I’m not sure it hurt him either.
May 8, 2008 — NYTimes – the caucus — Clinton Touts White Support
HRC manages to display over and over again that she will say and do anything that she thinks will win her points or an election. And then her gang acts all perplexed as to why her trustworthy rating in polls is in the red.
Her team is doing now exactly what it did in the primary — trash the opponent’s supporters. (The David Brock slash and burn school of electoral politics.) Too bad that tactic worked (if we’re to believe that the election results weren’t rigged in her favor). Lucky for her that Trump is near or at the bottom of the worst nominees ever and if his supporters were halfway rational, they’d recognize that none of the candidates represent what it is they favor and they are stuck with settling for a loudmouthed jerk because it’s at least a style they like.
Wow, Lambert S.let her have it with both barrels: “Clinton and the Democrat base — performing the sorting function into virtuous and non-virtuous for which they believe themselves so deeply suited — are saying, very explicitly, that Clinton will not be President of all the people; obviously, the “Basket of Deplorables” — which, deplorably, does not include her war criminal friend Henry Kissinger, or the various neoliberal warmongers who helped her set large portions of the Middle East on fire — shouldn’t be receiving government services at all; by Clinton’s own moral logic, it would be wrong to do so (see the Case Deaton study for the effects).
And worse than that, does anybody really believe that, in Clinton’s mind, the “basket of deplorables” is full?”
”
And yes, it appears you can be a racist if you are an elitist, too. Neoliberalism is ALL about identity politics.
To Lambert S’s point:
The smug style in American liberalism
by Emmett Rensin on April 21, 2016
There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what’s good for them.
In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.
It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.
(http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism)
Seeing quite a few of these critters coming out.
Surprisingly good long-read from Emmett Rensin @Vox …
○ Suspended Vox editor returns to work
Emmett Rensin
✔
@emmettrensin
Advice: If Trump comes to your town, start a riot.
Well, the DNCers can hardly complain HE lacks fealty! But he recognizes the warts, which few do. Even TINA does not ask us to BLIND ourselves.
Yes, mino!!!
Smug.
That’s “gums,” backwards.
And yes indeed, it is the smugness…what I have been calling “leftiness” here on Boo Trib…that is gumming up the progressive works.
Smug, upper middle class/ruling class DemRat whitetitlement folks, talking down to the rest of the U.S. while they bugger up those in their own party who are trying to find a way to be truly progressive and to win.. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to name a particular poster girl for the genre. Obama talking peace and freedom while waging war and creating a security state. HRC with her “It’s deplorable!!! deplorable, I say!!!” act while wink wink, nod nodding at the Controllers. The whole of dKos.
So it goes.
Today.
Tomorrow?
Who knows?
Where is our Bobby Kennedy?
Damned if I know.
AG
I live in a part of the country where politics is not about reason but power. And that power is used to discriminate against other people in significant ways.
The smug style is pretty much limited to academic discussion and upper middle class “ain’t it awful” sessions. At least around here.
If you want to see real smugness talk to some hardrock Limbaugh-listening conservatives. Or evangelicals sure of the imminent return of Jesus.
Fortunately smugness is not that rampant in either party at a popular level. And when it is, it is more the property of the duopoly establishment than where supporters are actually coming from. Of course, those of you in progressive strongholds might find this different where you are.
Well, this incident put it out there loud and proud, didn’t it?
Only if you take Clinton’s statement as smug. She has lived in Arkansas; she knows the stakes for minorities in the South if Trump gains power and most important legitimacy.
The problem that the Clinton campaign faces is the media’s normalizing of Trump’s attitudes as middle of the road and not extreme.
There was a time in which Americans were reading histories of the rise of Hitler and asking themselves how it happened in a previously cultured nation that after World War II was at the time de-Nazified outside of East Germany. Of course, they were not aware of the many Nazis that Allen Dulles had brought into the country for secret work on Cold War weaponry nor did they predict the 1960s fascination in some quarters for everything Third Reich. How we got to here is through the modern conservative movement and its impact on elite decisions. And the Democratic capitulation to it in 1986. After 30 years, the failure of that capitulation should be rather well understood among Democrats facing Donald Trump.
There was in fact no incremental progress that changed attitudes, just incremental progress that changed laws.
So where are the LGBTQ Republicans who loved economic “liberty” this year? Will they really form Johnson’s base?
“There was a time in which Americans were reading histories of the rise of Hitler and asking themselves how it happened in a previously cultured nation that after World War II was at the time de-Nazified outside of East Germany. “
And the answer was “the economic destruction of the working class and professional class”. By the latter I do not mean bankers. I refer to doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors. Both effects are evident in the USA.
The economic destruction of the working class and professional class need not have turned people to Nazism. There was an active left in Germany at the end of the Weimar Republic.
It is not inevitable that working class and professional classes vote for Trump or for that matter racist Republicans just because of economic destruction. It is after all a divided government in the US.
No, there was a real chance it would go Red. But either fascism or communism was inevitable.
“They” at least learned part of that lesson. Doctors and engineers are still doing quite well. As are most lawyers and univ professors. The difference is that there’s a surplus of lawyers and professors. A shortage of doctors that has been exasperated by more than needed specialists who command higher salaries because that’s one place in the US medical system where supply and demand curves aren’t operational. Engineers did better in the ’60s through at least the ’70s because a shortage existed. That was resolved by training more engineers and cutting back on public infrastructure spending.
Engineers are in a Depression due to the H1-B program. Doctos live well but not as well as before as they transition (mostly done here) from independent practitioners to corporate employees. They don’t like the corporate rules and the corporation sucks up more and more of the patient charges. For decades now I have heard engineers say they won’t allow their kids to become engineers. I’m starting to hear that from doctors.
Still a good market for nurses. Especially at the LPN & CNA levels where the icky grunt work is. There are HUGE numbers of Filipina nurses (at least around here) but still a ready market for all races.
Teachers are in a Depression too, with more unemployment on the way in Chicago.
Any argument with respect to liberal smugness that argues that the problem can be solved with magnanimity or by pointing out how much worse conservatives are misses the mark.
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/04/leftists-have-good-critique-of-emmett_23.html
Yeah, condescending magnanimity is soooooo attractive. Missionary to the benighted.
Did you read Lambert Strether’s take: Before there was “Basket of Deplorables” there was “BernieBros” and before that there was “Special Place in Hell” (for women Sanders supporters). Strategic hate management in each case, combined with massive category errors and vulgar identity politics. That’s what the Clinton faction has become…
And:
“To begin with, ideologically Clinton presents as an advanced, not to say florid, case of vulgar identity politics (see here and here). Clinton’s premise is either that Trump supporters are either in the racist basket or the distressed-by-economy-and-government* basket, and that they cannot be both/and. This is the politics of an infant, who believes that the world is divided into categories of Good People and Bad People. Of course, real people in the real world can be both, and economic distress is the driver of all sorts of other social ills.
Worse, Clinton and the Democrats seem to believe that racism is a personal and immutable essence; there is no notion that racism might be systemic. …the drug wars and carceral system, for which the Clinton Dynasty bears significant personal responsibility, and which has imprisoned and disenfranchised an entire generation of black men, are not (systemically) racist; the neoliberal economic consensus, in which the Democrat establishment is deeply complicit, which both produced the 2008 crash and failed to solve the lack of aggregate demand that followed it, and which led both to disproportionately black disemployment and disproportionally blackloss of homes in the foreclosure crisis, is not (systemically) racist; and foreign policy “blob,” very much including Clinton herself, who have charred innumerable but far away powerless brown bodies are not (systemically) racist.
* Note also the neat division between the Basket of Deplorables, placed in that basket by Clinton for putatively personal characteristics like racism, and the non-deplorables, who are motivated by abstractions like “government” who failed them, but who very conveniently do not hold non-abstractions, like political parties and Presidents, responsible.”
(http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/links-9102016.html#comment-2666604)
What I am finding in my personal networks is that anti-Hillary does not equal pro-Trump.
It is likely true that around half of Trump’s support is from bigots and white nationalists, more so from the former Confederate states.
I’m not sure what these people are going to do but Nate Silver’s model has 20% third party and undecided. I’m not sure they will break for Trump even though they know that only duopoly party candidates can win just because of the number of states available to them.
Likely sit out, especially the evangelicals. And maybe vote the downticket or maybe not.
The idea that progressives from New York and California know how this election is going to break is pushing it. There is one heck of a lot of uncertainty in the polling, not certainty.
And in fact, most white voters are not bigots and white nationalists and Clinton does have a substantial middle-class educated base. And Clinton has more of a white working class and lower class base than in recognized. It is still a minority of Clinton voters but the idea that she has lost all white middle class and working class voters with this remark is silly.
North Carolina is still a toss-up state.
On this, I think that Booman is correct. Clinton needs to be more aggressive and less apologetic in pointing out who actually is supporting Trump with the most enthusiasm. And it is not the Freedom Caucus or the Tea Party. It’s not really even the neo-Confederates. It’s folks who are closest to European racist, xenophobic, and nationalist parties. Interestingly, a lot of them don’t seem to be either poor or working class. And some seem to be rather well-educated professionals.
The idea that Trump is appealing to the white working class makes for nice promotion for Trump and lazy journalism, but I don’t think that it’s true. At the moment a lot of faithful Republicans are holding their noses and intending to vote for Trump but that does not extent to Republican voters who are not party faithful.
To me, the fact that Clinton “apologized” does not lend confidence to how forceful she will be in the debates against Trump’s lies. How much can she call him out on facts without getting savaged for not staying in her place? How much will she be shut up by the moderator so that Trump can filibuster? The Clinton campaign has not found an effective way to work the refs yet.
Just from the point of view of reducing Trump’s blather time, it would be to Clinton’s advantage to have both Johnson and Stein in the debates. But that’s just my judgement YMMV.
If POORS of all races are not the “veal pen” of DNCers, where are the policy papers on these vital issues for THEM? Their silence has been permission, no?
Neighborhood schools and accredited teachers
Policing for Profit
Militarization of Police
Asset Forfeiture Amendment
Carceral State support from federal taxpayers
I know these are mostly state issues, but the absence of Dems in state leges have led us to this pass. And their complicity on the federal level with sweeteners to the state.
Being the veal pen and continuing to vote are two different and not contradictory actions in practice.
But the POORS are least likely to actually get out to vote either way because of the practical difficulties with jobs, transportation, and child care. All POORS are effectively disenfranchised,
When there are Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the only complicity you can charge Democrats with is not fighting harder in the mid-terms. I believe that I have been all over that issue.
My comments are primarily about the state of the Presidential election at the moment and the supposed “gaffe” (the media’s characterization) that Clinton made in calling out half of Trump’s base. The 538 aggregate polls-plus estimate of popular vote (the most generous to Trump) shows Trump with 44.2% of the popular vote. Clinton’s accusation then most expansively applies only to 22.1% of likely voters. A highly contested election might bring out 170 million voters, more likely closer to 150 million voters. The maximum number of people that Clinton is calling white nationalists and bigots is 37 million, based on half of Trump’s current estimated vote. That’s just a little over 10% of the total population of the US.
Maybe, Clinton was wise to say she overgeneralized and it isn’t half of Trump’s voters who are ideological white nationalists and attitudinal bigots, but it’s somewhere in the lower 10s of millions.
The question for Republicans is whether that is who they are going to brand themselves as going forward. There are a lot of reflexive Republicans who need to confront that question because Trump for now owns the GOP.
As a practical matter, a Clinton landslide makes altering state laws easier. Democratic Parties in the former Confederacy are no longer all white; that’s the GOP, except for blacks who want to play both sides of the aisle or see more personal gains being a minority token.
I am not blind to the policy implications that Hillary Clinton brings with her, but I am not going to allow North Carolina to remain as it has been for six years without trying to vote out the rascals. And we do have excellent candidates this year in Roy Cooper for Governor and Deborah Ross for US Senate, no matter what the defamers say about them during the campaign.
Coinkidink in today’s 538:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-are-so-loyal-that-their-issues-get-ignored/ With numbers.
THEY are the effective left for the DNC. We go no further.
btw how good is Suffolk? NC at 3%?
What happened to the Machine Precinct Captains who made sure everyone was registered and everyone had a ride to the polls.
(And who, if they didn’t vote anyway, conveniently voted for them after hours.)
yeh, the last part, very important