Democrats Hope to Mobilize Blacks for Midterm Elections

[Chef Ramsay]

Via Ferguson of course.

FERGUSON, Mo. — Down the street from where the body of Michael Brown lay for hours after he was shot three weeks ago, volunteers have appeared beside folding tables under fierce sunshine to sign up new voters. On West Florissant Avenue, the site of sometimes violent nighttime protests for two weeks, voter-registration tents popped up during the day and figures like the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. lectured about the power of the vote.

In this small city, which is two-thirds African-American but has mostly white elected leaders, only 12 percent of registered voters took part in the last municipal election, and political experts say black turnout was very likely lower. But now, in the wake of the killing of Mr. Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, by a white Ferguson police officer, there is a new focus on promoting the power of the vote, an attempt to revive one of the keystones of the civil rights movement.

“A lot of people just didn’t realize that the people who impact their lives every day are directly elected,” said Shiron Hagens, 41, of St. Louis, who is not part of any formal group but has spent several days registering voters in Ferguson with her mother and has pledged to come back here each Saturday. “The prosecutor — he’s elected. People didn’t know that. The City Council — they’re elected. These are the sorts of people who make decisions about hiring police chiefs. People didn’t know.”

I left most of the good stuff back at the NYslimes...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/us/getting-ferguson-majority-to-show-its-clout-at-polls.html?_r=0

[1715283989]

1715283989

[nothing2seeHere]

What I find ironic is that black people tend to vote for democrats, but the cities that are run by democrats (Chicago for example) are run horribly with much higher then average crime rates, unemployment rates, tax rates, and lower job opportunities, and property values.

[Balthazar]

Are they ready to rename their party? Something like the "Black Unity" would be more appropriate.

[Mike Christ]

What I find ironic is that black people tend to vote for democrats, but the cities that are run by democrats (Chicago for example) are run horribly with much higher then average crime rates, unemployment rates, tax rates, and lower job opportunities, and property values.

Even more ironic, republicans were the ones who were anti-slavery, democrats were always pro-slavery, scribed the Jim Crow laws and fought against civil rights for blacks for the longest time.  The democrats have apparently won, however, since they convinced most blacks that they're the good guys, and republicans are the bad guys, effectively erasing and rewriting years of fucked up behavior.

[bryant.coleman]

Are they ready to rename their party? Something like the "Black Unity" would be more appropriate.

lol.. that will never happen. Black are less than 1/6th of the population. So the Democrats need votes from the Liberal whites and other minorities (especially the Latinos) to win the elections. And the rift between blacks and other minority racial groups (Latinos, Asians, Pacifics.etc) is widening. So far the only thing which unites these diverse groups, is their aim to oust the Anglos (backed by the GOP) from power. 

[murraypaul]

What I find ironic is that black people tend to vote for democrats, but the cities that are run by democrats (Chicago for example) are run horribly with much higher then average crime rates, unemployment rates, tax rates, and lower job opportunities, and property values.

You don't think that perhaps you have confused cause and effect?
Maybe cities with more social problems vote democrat, and nice safe areas vote republican?

[Balthazar]

Are they ready to rename their party? Something like the "Black Unity" would be more appropriate.

lol.. that will never happen. Black are less than 1/6th of the population. So the Democrats need votes from the Liberal whites and other minorities (especially the Latinos) to win the elections.

Full conversion isn't necessary. It's possible to create a special "black" wing of the party, for example. Invest some money and this wing will get significant part of their votes.

[bryant.coleman]

Full conversion isn't necessary. It's possible to create a special "black" wing of the party, for example. Invest some money and this wing will get significant part of their votes.

They are already getting close to 98% of the black votes. Why they need anymore? On the other hand, if I was a GOP tactician, I would look at the chances to split this vote-bank. A radical black-centric party can be formed, taking away a significant chunk of the black votes from the Democratic party. But I don't know whether this will succeed, as US is deeply embroiled in the two-party system.

[Balthazar]

as US is deeply embroiled in the two-party system.

It's only a consequence, but not a problem itself.

[DrG]

What I find ironic is that black people tend to vote for democrats, but the cities that are run by democrats (Chicago for example) are run horribly with much higher then average crime rates, unemployment rates, tax rates, and lower job opportunities, and property values.

You don't think that perhaps you have confused cause and effect?
Maybe cities with more social problems vote democrat, and nice safe areas vote republican?

There are few exceptions, but the cities that could be described as armpits in America have more or less gone full Democrat for the last 30 years.  In those 30 years most of those cities have gone down down down, like Los Angeles (one mayor Riordan was R, rest D).  Bradley was decent, but the last 3 Ds have been an absolute nightmare.  Chicago and Detroit are prefect examples - they haven't fixed any underlaying problems.