Women under 35 are supporting Sanders over Clinton!

[crazydaffodil]

Bernie talks more with his hands than he does with his mouth.  That mannerism is very distracting to me. 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, crazydaffodil said:

Bernie talks more with his hands than he does with his mouth.  That mannerism is very distracting to me. 

Eh. It's a Brooklyn thing. My husband and in-laws, originally from Brooklyn, all do it too. I got used to it very fast, but I can see how it can be distracting if you aren't used to it.

[OnceUponATime]

5 hours ago, crazydaffodil said:

Bernie talks more with his hands than he does with his mouth.  That mannerism is very distracting to me. 

That is why you should always be doing something like housework when listening to political speeches. That way you don't get sidetracked by all the visual things like their hair, their hand movements, the size of their hands, their look of exhaustion, etc...

[onlyme]

No matter who wins, I will miss Obama's speaking style a lot. 

[ALM7]

On 2/9/2016 at 8:43 AM, louisa05 said:

Nephew explained to his dad that no one should find it sexist because "all the great leaders in history have been white men". His GF and three other females were standing there at the time and none of them even blinked according to my brother. Seriously, I think we have a problem here. And I have a feeling he is not the only one. Especially since he is the follower of followers socially. We assume that in this, like absolutely everything else he does, he is just following a crowd. 

Your post related to my experience in the 70's.  As a young teen in '71, I was excited the voting age was changed from 21 to 18.  The first Presidential election I would be eligible to cast a vote would be the '76 Carter/Ford election.  By this time I was an undergrad in a college, that was considered a very liberal University.  I was shocked to find many young women choosing to vote as their male peers/boyfriends/fathers etc.  Some assumed the men were more "up" on politics, therefore; they blindly voted as the men did. I had no problem with the idea of them voting as their male influences, however; do so based on ones own research of the candidate and issues.  

@louisa05, I agree, it was a problem, and unfortunately, it's still a problem.  I feel we have a herd mentality within our culture. In this day and age, accurate information is literally a key stroke away. One may have to devote time and effort to find truly factual information, but it's there!

My teenage niece is bright and studious, but fails to grasp the importance of making independent, well thought out decisions. I've tried to explain the importance of never taking a right for granted. I've shared how difficult it was to obtain rights and stature.  I simply don't understand why some, not all by any means, fail to educate themselves in areas that may very well affect their future.  

I would like to give a huge shout-out to the young and old that are conscientious, and contribute to a positive direction for our country.  

::So far my niece doesn't run when she sees me coming lol::   

 

[ALM7]

On 2/9/2016 at 11:03 AM, Pupalup said:

I consider myself a feminist, but a lot of things that I've heard about Steinem kind of rub me the wrong way. Regardless of if her comments about Bernie supporters were taken out of context, she's said some not so nice things about trans women. I certainly believe she's done a lot of good though. It might be a generational difference,  because I know old school feminists and modern feminists don't always see eye to eye on everything.

As a woman that experienced the mid 70's as a young adult, I do understand what you are saying @Pupalup.  At times I find frustration within my own generation of "old school" feminist. Just as I have a difficult time comprehending why some feel our Constitution isn't a living document. Times change, and we need to build on the positive aspects of past accomplishments.  

However; we must never grow complacent. Feminist from past generations, must recognize the current generation is in a unique position to view events from an additional angle/perspective. I know I certainly valued my predecessors experiences, and benefited greatly from their accomplishments.  However; I did expect them to see the value of the current generations endeavors, we were as they were at one time, young and trying to contribute. 

Feminism, for the lack of a better word, personally I see it as women rightfully expecting equality in all areas, is much like our Constitution, the fundamentals stay the same, however, we must evolve. I appreciate the contributions all the generations are currently making.  I also thank the younger generation for building upon the foundation. 

[roddma]

The reason we have never elected a female president lies in 'she doesnt deserve a vote because she's woman" Thinking women who back Clinton are voting for gender only reinforces the idea women lack their own brain.

Thank you I have my own brain. I wonder who much choice these young women who support Bernie are exercising..I have nothing against Bernie but I feel many are follow the herd mentality as said above.I posted a piece where the writer says to vote for Bernie yet they never give a reason except subtlety hint at smacking feminism in the face for trying to 'fool them' into voting for a woman. .
Free college is great but should it before the affluent who can afford their own college?

[Mercer]

I guess I just don't get why either side would assume people on the other side can't have an adequate reason for preferring their candidate. I would figure that most people who are voting for either Sanders or Clinton are doing so because they agree with that candidate more and think they would be the better choice for high office.

[louisa05]

12 hours ago, Mercer said:

I guess I just don't get why either side would assume people on the other side can't have an adequate reason for preferring their candidate. I would figure that most people who are voting for either Sanders or Clinton are doing so because they agree with that candidate more and think they would be the better choice for high office.

You are assuming that everyone votes based on rational evaluations of policy positions. 

In 1992, my cousin backed Bill Clinton because Perot was "annoying" and Bush "already had a turn". 

In 2008, two female students, voting in their first election, explained to me that they preferred Obama because they did not like Hillary's outfits or her hair. 

And, of course, in frightening polling, it has been proven time and again that the candidate people would most like to have a beer with is most likely to win a U.S. presidential election. 

[Mama Mia]

On March 12, 2016 at 1:08 AM, roddma said:

The reason we have never elected a female president lies in 'she doesnt deserve a vote because she's woman" Thinking women who back Clinton are voting for gender only reinforces the idea women lack their own brain.

Thank you I have my own brain. I wonder who much choice these young women who support Bernie are exercising..I have nothing against Bernie but I feel many are follow the herd mentality as said above.I posted a piece where the writer says to vote for Bernie yet they never give a reason except subtlety hint at smacking feminism in the face for trying to 'fool them' into voting for a woman. .
Free college is great but should it before the affluent who can afford their own college?

With all due respect, that's a pretty patronizing line of thought.  I greatly prefer Sander's over Clinton, but I'm not going to make the assumption that anyone who prefers Clinton doesn't have perfectly valid reasons for their choices. 

I sincerely doubt the vast majority of Sander's supporters believe people are only voting for Clinton because she's a woman. Just like the vast majority of Sander's supporters don't favor him because he's a man. There likely is a small minority in favor of one or the other based primarily on gender - but I don't get how it's any less obnoxious to assume people arent voting for Hillary because she's a woman than to assume people are voting for her based only on being female. We aren't talking about the Duggar's here. The voters likely to object to a woman president aren't likely to vote for either of them for a lot of reasons. 

I've read lots of well-reasoned arguments for why people prefer Sander's. I actually haven't read a lot of good reasons for supporting Clinton - but I'm sure people have them. Truthfully, most of the arguments I've seen in her support have focused on her " electability" over Sander's ( not borne out by polls ) ,or  her experience - which includes a very convoluted and contradictory discussion of health care ( she pushed for universal care, but failed, so don't try again! Eleventy!) and voting for the war in Iraq - which she offensively dismisses as " just one vote" - never mind the phenomenal wreckage and loss of life that " one vote" caused.  She is still, to me, an infinitely better candidate than any of the Republicans running. She has done some good things. President Clinton did some good things - that she supported - but , overall, I don't agree with her positions to  the degree I agree with his. That's how elections work. I don't expect to 100% agree with ANY candidate. But I am going to assume other rational people will support other candidates based on their beliefs, experiences and priorities. I'm not going to dismiss them with an  ageist, elitist, sexist  wave of the hand . And believing that these silly young people don't have any " reasons" for their preference is all three of those things.

Specifically, I am supporting Sander's because I think our current health care system is ridiculous. Employer based coverage stifles economic growth, hugely favors huge corporations over small business, keeps workers chained to jobs they hate., discourages entreupeneurs AND doesn't even lead to good health outcomes.  I support his plans for tuition free public universities because it's the 21st century and most young people need education past high school to secure a good job. In fact, the ability of anyone who wants to attend college being able to do so ALSO benefits the young people who don't attend because they want to work in jobs where it isn't required -or they aren't academically inclined - because then there is less competition for those jobs. And yes, it should be available to everyone - just like public high school - which I'm sure was controversial when it was implemented . As recently as 1940 only a quarter of adults had graduated high school. Now it's about 85% . The overall economy and standard of living improved with increased education. The world didn't end. There is no reason to think that a new century and changed economy wouldn't benefit from expanded free public education.

[jaelh]

14 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

With all due respect, that's a pretty patronizing line of thought.  I greatly prefer Sander's over Clinton, but I'm not going to make the assumption that anyone who prefers Clinton doesn't have perfectly valid reasons for their choices. 

I sincerely doubt the vast majority of Sander's supporters believe people are only voting for Clinton because she's a woman. Just like the vast majority of Sander's supporters don't favor him because he's a man. There likely is a small minority in favor of one or the other based primarily on gender - but I don't get how it's any less obnoxious to assume people arent voting for Hillary because she's a woman than to assume people are voting for her based only on being female. We aren't talking about the Duggar's here. The voters likely to object to a woman president aren't likely to vote for either of them for a lot of reasons. 

I don't think you're wrong, at a conscious level. I really don't. I can't imagine that that many people would vote against a woman because Woman. 

But at the subconscious level? it's insidious. Study after study - academics that students think are women get lower rankings than the exact same person if they think they are male (online classes); when students are asked to rate the performance of other students male students are rated a grade band higher than female peers; salaries for female graduates are lower than for their male peers in the same jobs and so on and so on and so on. 

I reckon their would be plenty of people that would tell themselves it's not that she's a woman, it's that it's that woman. And they'd believe it; they'd totally mean it. If Bernie Sanders were a woman, they'd vote for him for sure.  But really?  Hypotheticals are easy, cause you can claim anything you want. Who knows how it would turn out?

And there's been a what.. near 25 years of anti-Hilary discourse out there. She is cold, she's a bitch, she stood by Bill when he was having affairs because she was an ambitious harpy, she's shrill. And it's not just conservatives; there are voters that were born after Bill was first elected that have never experienced a political discourse where Hilary hasn't been demonised.  You recall those years? Even their 13 year old daughter was harangued for her looks, because she was an awkward teen.  

Differentiating policy from the gender and anti-Hilary stuff that's been in the ether for our whole life in the first instance, and for decades (or, indeed, some people's whole life) in the second - I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut as you think it is.  I do think there are genuine policy issues at stake, and I am not saying that there aren't good policy reasons to not choose HC, but... differentiating principles from sexism, racism, whatever other ism.. they reinforce each other; they're almost impossible to seperate.

[AlysonRR]

I've been signed up to Bernie Sanders's email list for years and have enjoyed his periodic essays on education and health care and income equality. I support his nomination because his policy ideas are more aligned with mine than Hilary Clinton's are.  I'm pretty irritated that anyone would think I support Bernie over Hilary because of their gender. 

I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination, though. There used to be Republicans I could vote for, but they all have moved too far to the right on social issues for me to consider them anymore.

[GiggleOfGirls]

As someone who has voted for a woman for president before, I can tell you for certain that I'm not supporting Bernie because he's a man. If he supported the things Hillary does then I'd have sat out the primaries (as I usually do) and then voted for Jill Stein again. 

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, jaelh said:

I reckon their would be plenty of people that would tell themselves it's not that she's a woman, it's that it's that woman. And they'd believe it; they'd totally mean it. If Bernie Sanders were a woman, they'd vote for him for sure.  But really?  Hypotheticals are easy, cause you can claim anything you want. Who knows how it would turn out?

Well... I voted for Clinton over Obama in the 2008 primary. At the time I felt she was the better candidate because I thought she was stronger on gay rights and had a better understanding of issues related to poverty. So it's not necessarily totally hypothetical because many of us have a voting history, nor is this the first time Clinton has run for office.

Don't get me wrong, sexism is definitely a major problem, including in politics. I just think it's overreaching to assume that any particular individual who is voting for Sanders (or for Clinton, for that matter) is doing so for reasons of gender. 

In the general election, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it's Clinton or Sanders. I will be honest, though - Clinton has really disappointed me with some of her decisions, so although I was a primary voter for her in the past, she lost me as a supporter.

[ShepherdontheRock]

I'm quite young (only my second presidential election, and I was just old enough to reelect Obama) and voted for Clinton because

-I think she'd be more likely to get shit done.

-While I'm not by any means against most of Bernie's more radical ideas, I just think they're not practical, and wouldn't be implemented by our current congress.

-I actually think Clinton has a much better understanding of poverty-related, racial inequality, and etc issues. To be fair, perhaps Bernie is not quite so articulate as unlike her, he is not used to this level of exposure.

-Actually, it annoys me that a lot of people will jump down Clinton's throat for anything that can be interpreted wrong in the slightest, yet Bernie can make similar gaffes and they don't care bc Bernie apparently can do no wrong. The best example I can think of is the Nancy Reagan AIDS thing (where I believe she genuinely made a mistake) and Bernie insinuating that all black people are poor and live in ghettos and white people don't.

-I prefer her on gun control.

-I also think she'd do more RE climate change.

That all said, I'd happily vote for Sanders before ANY of the Republican candidates.

[Sundaymorning]

40 minutes ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

I'm quite young (only my second presidential election, and I was just old enough to reelect Obama) and voted for Clinton because

-I think she'd be more likely to get shit done.

-While I'm not by any means against most of Bernie's more radical ideas, I just think they're not practical, and wouldn't be implemented by our current congress.

-I actually think Clinton has a much better understanding of poverty-related, racial inequality, and etc issues. To be fair, perhaps Bernie is not quite so articulate as unlike her, he is not used to this level of exposure.

-Actually, it annoys me that a lot of people will jump down Clinton's throat for anything that can be interpreted wrong in the slightest, yet Bernie can make similar gaffes and they don't care bc Bernie apparently can do no wrong. The best example I can think of is the Nancy Reagan AIDS thing (where I believe she genuinely made a mistake) and Bernie insinuating that all black people are poor and live in ghettos and white people don't.

-I prefer her on gun control.

-I also think she'd do more RE climate change.

That all said, I'd happily vote for Sanders before ANY of the Republican candidates.

I agree. I don't agree with Clinton on many political issues, but I find it sickening how so many people who consider themselves politically progressive, just seem to wait until Clinton makes a tiny mistake and then attack her like a bunch of sharks on a feeding frenzy. I mean, we all know that most Republicans hate Clinton and are eager to turn everything she says into some kind of scandal, but some of these over-motivated media people and Sanders stans really need to dial it down a notch.

[Mama Mia]

8 minutes ago, Sundaymorning said:

I agree. I don't agree with Clinton on many political issues, but I find it sickening how so many people who consider themselves politically progressive, just seem to wait until Clinton makes a tiny mistake and then attack her like a bunch of sharks on a feeding frenzy. I mean, we all know that most Republicans hate Clinton and are eager to turn everything she says into some kind of scandal, but some of these over-motivated media people and Sanders stans really need to dial it down a notch.

Now that's where I think our biases impact our perceptions come in - because I can't watch a main stream news station , or read a comment thread, without getting infuriated over how blatant the pro-Clinton bias is! 

As far as those two previous examples - re: Sander's ghetto gaffe and Clinton's AIDS - Reagan remarks. Of course they both just slipped up. Frankly I don't know how ANY of them can string a coherent thought together at this point. They've been talking non- stop for a year! I'd have died from exhaustion 6 months ago. 

But ive seen multiple memes and takedowns of Sander's over his comments, and nothing about Hillary's. Hers actually surprised me more - because the Regan's being awful at the start of the AIDS epidemic  seemed like a basic background bit of information that most people who were adults at that time just know. So I thought it was weird, but just a weird slip , not anything malevolent.

[Sundaymorning]

@Mama Mia Maybe you are right. I don't watch so much US-tv, although I watch CNN occasionally, but I do read a lot of US newspapers online, and I do follow what people are posting about the candidates on social media quite a bit, so that is where I get my impressions from. Maybe it is biased, since I tend to read more of what the younger crowd, where Sanders is often regarded as some kind of demi-god, says. But yes, I'm still shocked about the hatred (and also blatant sexism) that Clinton gets from some of these "progressives".

But what I have to add regarding those allegations that young women only support Sanders because they want to snatch a "BernieBro": basically all my lesbian tumblr friends support him too. And I doubt they are doing it because of some guy...

[ShepherdontheRock]

11 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Now that's where I think our biases impact our perceptions come in - because I can't watch a main stream news station , or read a comment thread, without getting infuriated over how blatant the pro-Clinton bias is! 

As far as those two previous examples - re: Sander's ghetto gaffe and Clinton's AIDS - Reagan remarks. Of course they both just slipped up. Frankly I don't know how ANY of them can string a coherent thought together at this point. They've been talking non- stop for a year! I'd have died from exhaustion 6 months ago. 

But ive seen multiple memes and takedowns of Sander's over his comments, and nothing about Hillary's. Hers actually surprised me more - because the Regan's being awful at the start of the AIDS epidemic  seemed like a basic background bit of information that most people who were adults at that time just know. So I thought it was weird, but just a weird slip , not anything malevolent.

It's funny- I'm surrounded by avid Bernie supporters and Bernie's dank meme stash people, and some of them were flying into a rage at the gaffe, yet crickets about anything Bernie's flubbed on. Also, some of them are rather quick to jump down the throats of "the media" yet I know one Sanders supporter that took something written on Inquistr seriously...really?

I honesty think Hillary probably was put on the spot and that's what came out of her mouth. I think her apology, whether or not it was written by her herself, was sincere on her part.

And I also hate the "Goldwater Girl" double standard. I don't really care if Hillary was a conservative in high school, while Bernie, in his 20s was doing civil rights marches. IMO, that's an extremely unfair comparison, and it's also laugh-worthy when I see people who I specifically remember being butthurt when McCain and/or Romney lost sharing that stupid meme.

[roddma]

SO go ahead and down vote me but I say it's true. I read articles entitled' Open Letter to Older Women Voting for HIllary" Now here's a millennial telling women twice their age how wrong they are to vote based on gender but it never says why you should vote for Sanders. it's just an attack on the other side with no rhyme or reason reason. They are the shallow and patronizing ones. How do they know who's voting for whom based on what maybe that's what they have heard based on one or two popular feminists. Some of us weren't born yesterday.
I shared this in another thread :
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/08/an_open_letter_to_older_woman_voting_for_hillary_from_a_younger_woman_voting_for_bernie/

[VelociRapture]

12 hours ago, roddma said:

SO go ahead and down vote me but I say it's true. I read articles entitled' Open Letter to Older Women Voting for HIllary" Now here's a millennial telling women twice their age how wrong they are to vote based on gender but it never says why you should vote for Sanders. it's just an attack on the other side with no rhyme or reason reason. They are the shallow and patronizing ones. How do they know who's voting for whom based on what maybe that's what they have heard based on one or two popular feminists. Some of us weren't born yesterday.
I shared this in another thread :
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/08/an_open_letter_to_older_woman_voting_for_hillary_from_a_younger_woman_voting_for_bernie/

I remember discussing this article in the other thread. My views still stand - the author isn't attacking anyone for choosing to support Hillary. And she isn't looking to convince anyone to vote for Sanders either (which is why there are no reasons listed for why she supports him.) She's simply asking that she, and all people, be allowed to support another candidate without being called bad feminists or boy crazy or looked down upon for their support of a male candidate. Seriously, she's just asking to be shown the same respect that women supporting other candidates are being shown.

It would have been better if the author had specifically addressed the Clinton supporters who publicly stated those things rather than just addressing all Clinton supporters over a certain age - just as it would be better if some Clinton supporters could remember to specifically call out the small number of Sanders supporters being assholes instead of all his supporters. Other than that though, I really don't see how this article helps illustrate your point.

[Mama Mia]

On March 16, 2016 at 5:45 PM, ShepherdontheRock said:

It's funny- I'm surrounded by avid Bernie supporters and Bernie's dank meme stash people, and some of them were flying into a rage at the gaffe, yet crickets about anything Bernie's flubbed on. Also, some of them are rather quick to jump down the throats of "the media" yet I know one Sanders supporter that took something written on Inquistr seriously...really?

I honesty think Hillary probably was put on the spot and that's what came out of her mouth. I think her apology, whether or not it was written by her herself, was sincere on her part.

And I also hate the "Goldwater Girl" double standard. I don't really care if Hillary was a conservative in high school, while Bernie, in his 20s was doing civil rights marches. IMO, that's an extremely unfair comparison, and it's also laugh-worthy when I see people who I specifically remember being butthurt when McCain and/or Romney lost sharing that stupid meme.

On March 15, 2016 at 4:48 AM, jaelh said:

I don't think you're wrong, at a conscious level. I really don't. I can't imagine that that many people would vote against a woman because Woman. 

But at the subconscious level? it's insidious. Study after study - academics that students think are women get lower rankings than the exact same person if they think they are male (online classes); when students are asked to rate the performance of other students male students are rated a grade band higher than female peers; salaries for female graduates are lower than for their male peers in the same jobs and so on and so on and so on. 

I reckon their would be plenty of people that would tell themselves it's not that she's a woman, it's that it's that woman. And they'd believe it; they'd totally mean it. If Bernie Sanders were a woman, they'd vote for him for sure.  But really?  Hypotheticals are easy, cause you can claim anything you want. Who knows how it would turn out?

And there's been a what.. near 25 years of anti-Hilary discourse out there. She is cold, she's a bitch, she stood by Bill when he was having affairs because she was an ambitious harpy, she's shrill. And it's not just conservatives; there are voters that were born after Bill was first elected that have never experienced a political discourse where Hilary hasn't been demonised.  You recall those years? Even their 13 year old daughter was harangued for her looks, because she was an awkward teen.  

Differentiating policy from the gender and anti-Hilary stuff that's been in the ether for our whole life in the first instance, and for decades (or, indeed, some people's whole life) in the second - I don't think it's anywhere near as clear cut as you think it is.  I do think there are genuine policy issues at stake, and I am not saying that there aren't good policy reasons to not choose HC, but... differentiating principles from sexism, racism, whatever other ism.. they reinforce each other; they're

 

Ugg. I'm having a hard time with quotes.

Anyway......I never said it was completely cut and dried and that traits like gender play absolutely no role in people's choices. Of course it plays some role. But to be reasonable you also then have to acknowledge that there are certainly a large number of people who are going to partially base their support of Clinton on the fact she is a woman, and would be the first woman president. And in this particular instance, I would think that if anything, you are going to have a stronger overall bias towards wanting to make history and open doors by electing a woman. Everything else being equal, if I agreed on their policy positions relatively equally- I certainly would go for the first woman president over a male candidate. But I don't agree with their policy positions equally, not even close, so I'm not going to vote for her just because she is a woman, when I agree with the male candidates positions more. That's all people are saying, and I really don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.   And yes, I agree there have been 25 years of unjustified criticism of Hillary Clinton. However there is a flip side to that as well. There has also been 25 years of high profile name recognition, and despite the highly publicized sex scandals the fact is that  Bill Clinton was, and is, hugely popular.  I have kind of a hard time with what appears to be a huge double standard in what is acceptable to criticize a candidate on based on gender. I don't agree with critiquing on appearance in general - but I don't really get why it's okay for people to snark on Trump's hair and spray tan , or Cruz having a punchable face, or Rubio being just a pretty boy ( don't know if that happens on FJ, but it's all over the place ) - or Callthe male candidates   dicks, or complain about their mannerisms or tone of  voice  but it's not okay with Clinton. 

 

[Mama Mia]

Sorry for the previous wall-o-text. Formatting is not my friend today.

I wanted to add that Clinton also benefits from a deeply ingrained cultural bias towards Christian's. I would assume this has been especially helpful to her in the South. 

[Maggie Mae]

21 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Sorry for the previous wall-o-text. Formatting is not my friend today.

I wanted to add that Clinton also benefits from a deeply ingrained cultural bias towards Christian's. I would assume this has been especially helpful to her in the South. 

usually a double enter will get you out of the quote box. 

I agree with you. Clinton was very popular. We enjoyed economic prosperity under Clinton. He was a charismatic, engaging, popular president. Looking back on some of his decisions as an adult, I find I disagree with some of them. For example, the 3 strikes crime bill. I sometimes wonder why she is so popular with some of the communities that were the most affected by some of the worst policies. 

I would LOVE a woman president. 

But Hilary is not the one. And If I were voting in the 1992 (?) election, I might reconsider. (Probably not. I wasn't old enough to vote and I don't even remember who ran against Bill.) Name recognition is HUGE. People know her. She's been a meme. People, offline, aren't aware of Sanders. The media hasn't given him half the attention. And the media is feeding Trumpmania as well. 

[ShepherdontheRock]

@Mama Mia you bring up a good point- I think that's why statistically Bernie's biggest supporters are college students and white men in general. While some of my peers express confusion as to why Hillary's winning big with minority voters...apparently while black voters can usually be couted on to be democrats, they can also be counted on to be moderate democrats. As in, they are not as enthusiastic about things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Which I guess explains why Hillary (and Obama) were really careful about what they said RE their views on those issues. 

Honestly, I think being too late to the table on LGBT issues is much better than still having a temper tantrum about them, like the entire republican party. 

@Maggie Mae I think the 3 strikes bill and the crime things (which the Clintons I think now admit weren't such a good idea) were actually popular among black communities too. From what it sounds like, they probably thought it'd reduce crime in their communities.