The White Entitlement of Some Sanders Supporters

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Not my article. Not my title. So don't come for me with racist accusations

-----Via Daily Beast

“Killary Clinton is stealing the nomination and the system is rigged against Bernie Sanders,” said the two young white guys standing behind me in line. They rambled incessantly about how she was cheating and could not be trusted. Superdelegates were their greatest frustration. Unelected delegates who could “decide” the nomination proved that the process was a sham that was intentionally set up to prevent Sanders from winning.

At first I tried to ignore the conversation and thought they were Trump supporters (“Killary” is usually a right-wing thing). But once it became clear that these guys were Sanders supporters, I had to jump in. For years, these guys had been “my people.” I have been a fan of Sanders long before his presidential run and have made many friends due to our mutual admiration of his policies. Surely, I’d be able to have a civil, rational conversation with these guys, right? (no  )

When, I chimed in it was evident that we were speaking different languages. We agreed on most of the substantive policy issues, and I told them how I even interned for Sanders about a decade ago. We should have been able to see eye to eye, but we could not. The main source of their frustration was merely the fact that they had lost. The fact that she is ahead in the popular vote, has won more primaries and caucuses, and has earned more delegates was to them a minor nuisance. They had their absurd talking points and were unwilling to deviate into reality. 

The more I reflected on them, the more I realized the key point: They felt entitled to win, and a defeat meant that someone must have cheated or that their opinions did not matter, which of course couldn’t be true. They preferred to suspend reality and fabricate injustices rather than concede that Sanders has lost fair and square.

Essentially, we disagreed on what America supposedly promised or owed us. They felt success was promised to them. The entitlement to believe that you should always win allowed them to overlook how the system in many ways has always been unjustly rigged in their favor because they’re white.

They could not understand the perspectives of blacks, Latinos and other minorities in America who are regularly treated as threats to society before their voices can be heard. We are often silenced before we even have the chance to win. And as a result, we know that losing is a reality we will confront and that success can be a difficult and long process that may only show its face in the lives of our children or grandchildren who have more opportunities because we’ve spent a lifetime fighting for positive change.

These guys could not understand this struggle. They wanted immediate success and gratification, and they were not used to things not going their way. 

Sanders’s message has resonated mostly with a younger, predominantly white electorate like those two guys. Their message and frustrations have been heard loud and clear, but their electoral defeats have resulted in an intensified pack or tribalist mentality that unfortunately has similarities to the white tribalism that has guided Trump’s campaign. 

Sanders has broadened the Democratic electorate to include voters who may not normally participate in the primaries and caucuses, but now they need to combat the tribalism that could negatively impact Clinton and other Democrats in the general election. Sanders, unfortunately, has said that he has no obligation to convince his supporters to throw in with Clinton.

A beguiling component of Sanders’s campaign is how the unintentional white tribalism that has been forged on shared economic hardships has boosted his campaign, while at the same time rendering him unappealing to the minorities he needed to win the nomination.

White entitlement is shaping up to be a critical issue during this election for both the Democrats and the Republicans. Trump and the GOP are championing the entitled white life of yore. But the Democrats have another dilemma and must figure out a way for their diverse electorate to converse and unite around the shared goals of equity and progress without the archaic divisions and privileges of the past. Thus far it looks like the Democrats and the Sanders campaign still have a lot of work to do.

[PartySick 174,510]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

If you’re young, white and privileged

Ooop already lost me

It astounds me that anything can be turned into a race debate these days. From a gorilla being shot to a presidential election

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, PartySick said:

Ooop already lost me

It astounds me that anything can be turned into a race debate these days. From a gorilla being shot to a presidential election

Well this is actually discussing political demographics so it's very applicable.

In any case it wasn't part of the article. It was a subtitle. I'll remove it since it's not really indicative of the content.

[brendablethyn 536]

"Sanders has lost fair and square"... ah no that's the whole problem. If someone cuts corners and gets help in a running race, they didn't win fair and square. It's the same here. She had help the whole way along. That's why people are angry. Not because they can't take a loss. People were saying last year that it was rigged against Bernie when the Debbie W-S refused to schedule any debates. And then when Hillary started struggling they magically were able to add more. The process was a joke.  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

"Sanders has lost fair and square"... ah no that's the whole problem. If someone cuts corners and gets help in a running race, they didn't win fair and square. It's the same here. She had help the whole way along. That's why people are angry. Not because they can't take a loss. People were saying last year that it was rigged against Bernie when the Debbie W-S refused to schedule any debates. And then when Hillary started struggling they magically were able to add more. The process was a joke.  

There were 8 debates..  

The argument wasn't that. It was that the debates were scheduled in a time awkward for millenials (aka Sanders supporters).

Of course that's hogwash given that they were at night and the debates are jointly scheduled with the stations not just the DNC.

[Didymus 34,380]

I find it pretty disdainful to take a conversation with two random dudes and blow it out of proportion as if they're representative of the entire younger white support base for Sanders.

I am equally horrified at the unargumented conclusion that non-white groups know how to "take defeat" and have a more realistic mindset regarding change in society, as if every non-white individual is "spending a lifetime fighting for positive change" while white people are just looking for quick gratification.

Those are some seriously unnecessary and doubtful generalizations that imo disqualify his whole argument. This idea of white entitlement seems completely random, why can't he just see it as self-induced bias? Very natural thing that's obviously occurring in a lot more camps than Bernie's. 

Just odd piece of writing.

[brendablethyn 536]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

There were 8 debates..  

The argument wasn't that. It was that the debates were scheduled in a time awkward for millenials (aka Sanders supporters).

Of course that's hogwash given that they were at night and the debates are jointly scheduled with the stations not just the DNC.

Even Republicans and Fox News were laughing and dragging the Democrats for having debates on Saturday nights. There's were mostly all midweek, I wonder why there wasn't a scheduling problem for them 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I find it pretty disdainful to take a conversation with two random dudes and blow it out of proportion as if they're representative of the entire younger white support base for Sanders.

I am equally horrified at the unargumented conclusion that non-white groups know how to "take defeat" and have a more realistic mindset regarding change in society, as if every non-white individual is "spending a lifetime fighting for positive change" while white people are just looking for quick gratification.

Those are some seriously unnecessary and doubtful generalizations that imo disqualify his whole argument. This idea of white entitlement seems completely random, why can't he just see it as self-induced bias? Very natural thing that's obviously occurring in a lot more camps than Bernie's. 

Just odd piece of writing.

This is a normal way to write an opinion piece. You use one anecdote to establish context. It doesn't mean it's your only experience. He's not going to quote every single experience he's had.

I'm not going to comment on his opinions. I can't say whether what he says is true or false having not grown up as a minority in the USA.

Although I have to say his opinions are consistent with the voting booth.

[The Surrealist 27,470]

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I find it pretty disdainful to take a conversation with two random dudes and blow it out of proportion as if they're representative of the entire younger white support base for Sanders.

I am equally horrified at the unargumented conclusion that non-white groups know how to "take defeat" and have a more realistic mindset regarding change in society, as if every non-white individual is "spending a lifetime fighting for positive change" while white people are just looking for quick gratification.

Those are some seriously unnecessary and doubtful generalizations that imo disqualify his whole argument. This idea of white entitlement seems completely random, why can't he just see it as self-induced bias? Very natural thing that's obviously occurring in a lot more camps than Bernie's. 

Just odd piece of writing.

It is very popular among unqualified writers to generalize a group of people.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Sycamore said:

It is very popular among unqualified writers to generalize a group of people.

Generalize who? The title literally says "SOME" Sanders supporters. 

There is no generalization to begin with  

Any descriptions are not based on fiction either.

Spoiler

 

 

Sanders appeals mostly to younger white males. 

Considering my own experiences, I'm inclined to agree with him that it's consistent that it's mostly young white males (many men on this forum have the same zealotry exhibited by those in his anecdote.

[The Surrealist 27,470]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

It's not based on fiction

"Among a national sample of 3700 adults aged 18 and over" 

Also, your statistic is about preference not "entitlement" like in your original post. The writer projected the opinion of two people to all of the Sanders supporters.

And you posted a statistic about voting preferences to prove that Hilary Clinton is the only choice for America and anybody who disagrees gets bombarded with irrelavant statistics.

[Didymus 34,380]

17 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

This is a normal way to write an opinion piece. You use one anecdote to establish context. It doesn't mean it's your only experience. He's not going to quote every single experience he's had.

He's not referring to other experiences though. "The more I reflected on them, the more I realized the key point." And then comes a generalization out of nowhere, the generalization being the only foundation to his conclusion. That's not a very successful way of proving there's any relevance to your opinion.

The only thing people could possibly have to say about this is: "I've experienced the same and I agree", "I haven't experienced the same, but I agree", or "I haven't experienced the same, and I don't agree". No one can come up with arguments though, 'cause you're gonna end up making idiotic generalizations either way.

I mean, the subtitle already brought up is literally this:

"If you’re young, white and privileged, you don’t expect to lose. When you do, it must be because you got cheated. Blacks know better."

First you'd already have to tackle the mere idea that young white privilege automatically leads to an expectation of success. That alone is a very doubtful idea to me, let alone connecting that idea (for which no arguments are given) to politics rn, and only (I know he brought up the Democratic party in general, and Trump ofc but his main target is Sanders just because some idiotic supporters chatted with him) as a decoration for his actual argument: Sanders supporters need to switch to Hillary because in a long term perspective, it's beneficial to their fight.

That's his real opinion, as exemplified also in the other articles he wrote. That's what we can discuss, this race thing is just a distraction, which is all the more obvious since he's not at all treating the very obvious problem that's unaddressed in this opinion piece: if blacks know better, then why weren't they voting for Sanders in the first place like he was until his success started losing momentum? He quickly seems to suggest that this is yet again because of a white tribalist attitude, which I again find an unwarranted conclusion when no good evidence is provided. There has already been lots of talk about why Bernie's campaign isn't successful among PoC minorities and not once have I heard this theory of white entitlement, in fact the conclusion seems to be that though black Americans show plenty of admiration for Bernie in polls, they simply don't vote for him because they already have personal ties to Hillary because of the history of her political career, in contrast to Bernie's. One important element is their relationship with Obama, as pointed out by various journalists.

So no, this is not enough. And if we're supposed to discuss this, we have to first look at how valid this theory is. Personally I think it holds little validity, and I don't like how you're now implying that proof isn't necessary since this is just the way an opinion piece is written. You were quick enough to slam Susan's entire interview about Bernie because of its low value in detail (which you instantly interpreted as Susan being an idiotic, "mentally unhinged" Bernie bot), yet now you're just posting this opinion piece, clearly without expecting anyone to treat it critically, as if this writer is saying something we all should know. Why? Where's the evidence? It should be there, even in an opinion piece. A convo with two random people on the street is not enough, and should never be enough.

[uo111 5,285]

12 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

Even Republicans and Fox News were laughing and dragging the Democrats for having debates on Saturday nights. There's were mostly all midweek, I wonder why there wasn't a scheduling problem for them 

Do you actually believe saturday night debates are rigged for Hillary? I'd love (or maybe I wouldn't love) to hear the reasoning for that.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Sycamore said:

"Among a national sample of 3700 adults aged 18 and over" 

Also, your statistic is about preference not "entitlement" like in your original post. The writer projected the opinion of two people to all of the Sanders supporters.

And you posted a statistic about voting preferences to prove that Hilary Clinton is the only choice for America and anybody who disagrees gets bombarded with irrelavant statistics.

... That's how statistics work... You only need 1000+ for accuracy

Also what? I'm not even talking about Hillary here don't inject her into this conversation to derail it.

I'm talking about how most of Sanders' supporters are young white and male and how their behavior is relatively consistent.

[The Surrealist 27,470]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

... That's how statistics work... You only need 1000+ for accuracy

Also what? I'm not even talking about Hillary here don't inject her into this conversation to derail it.

I'm talking about how most of Sanders' supporters are young white and male.

We all know that this post is here to rubbish Sanders and his supporters, so you can uphold Clinton.