Without the support of Blacks in the recent Democratic Party primaries, Joe Biden would still be the political failure in U.S. Presidential campaigning that he had always been. As the Republican political pro, Pat Buchanan, wrote of Biden on March 5th, “Before last Saturday, he had not won a single primary in three presidential campaigns.” That “last Saturday” referred to the South Carolina primary. Biden’s first-ever win of a Presidential primary turned Biden’s dead-in-the-water 2020 Presidential campaign into an almost-certain win of the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination. The vast majority of the votes for Biden in the South Carolina primary came from that state’s black Democrats, who are the majority of that state’s registered Democrats. (Sanders’s win of that state’s white Democrats was by a smaller margin.) The Democratic National Committee and its 700+ superdelegates and its members of Congress (representing the Party’s billionaires, who finance their careers) had been waiting for this moment before they would become more public about their backing of Biden to be their nominee; and so the official endorsements started suddenly then to pour forth, as if Biden already were the Party’s nominee. Consequently, going into the March 3rd Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states, the opinion polls, which had, until then, shown Sanders as being likely to win almost all of the states, turned suddenly to show Biden as being likely to win almost all of them — which then did happen.
By as late as February 9th, which was the time by which it became clear that Bernie Sanders had won the most votes in the February 3rd Iowa caucuses, the national polls of Democratic Party voters had shown Joe Biden strongly as #1, with Bernie Sanders a distant #2 nationwide; but, then, promptly after February 9th, the polls showed a huge lead for Sanders as the new #1, and Biden as being around 8% below him and the new #2; but, then, Biden won the South Carolina primary on February 29th, in a landslide and now he is projected by fivethirtyeight dot com as being 88% likely to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Convention, and as being around 10% likely to get the win of the nomination on a second ballot, and Sanders as having the remaining 2% as being his likelihood to become the Democratic Party’s nominee.
Whereas Biden won 60% of Blacks’ votes in the South Carolina primary, he won only 26% of Whites’ votes there. (Biden won 58% of the voters aged 65+; Sanders won 46% of the voters aged under 30. So: age was the second-most important factor.) Consequently, Biden’s South Carolina landslide was very much a victory by the state’s black Democrats and a loss by the state’s white Democrats. There was the exact opposite of a “rainbow coalition” in South Carolina. And that state’s Blacks handed the nomination to the candidate that the Democratic Party’s billionaires had preferred but didn’t think could beat Sanders and so they had initially favored first Buttigieg and then a few others; and, of course, the billionaires Steyer and Bloomberg later entered the field themselves, hoping to be the individual who could block Sanders. But South Carolina’s Blacks did the job that the Party’s billionaires (and even the Republican Party’s billionaires) could not do without them — virtually handed the nomination to what the billionaire-controlled press (likewise serving the billionaires and seeking to sink Sanders) calls a ‘moderate’ (which implies that any candidate who is a progressive — such as Sanders is — is an ‘extremist’).
A stunning analysis of the ‘racial’ composition of the polling-support that’s indicated nationwide in the Biden-versus-Sanders electoral contests up through March 6th, as shown by the excellent webpage at the Economist magazine regarding the U.S. Presidential primaries, presents the following percentages of support by Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, throughout the country:
WHITE: Sanders 26%, Biden 17%.
BLACK: Biden 44%, Sanders 17%.
HISPANIC: Sanders 31%, Biden 23%.
That totaled to 84% for Biden, and 76% for Sanders, an 8% advantage overall for Biden, because of the overwhelming 44%/17%, or nearly threefold (2.59), ratio of Blacks preferring Biden to Sanders. The votes by America’s Blacks — and not merely the political preferences by the Democratic Party’s billionaires whom the Democratic National Committee (DNC) actually serve — are the two essential and indispensable reasons why the general-election choice for the American public on November 3rd will now almost certainly be Biden versus Trump (both of whom are acceptable to America’s billionaires), instead of Sanders versus Trump (only one of whom is acceptable to America’s billionaires).
Among the Democratic Party’s non-Black voters, there was 57% support for Sanders, versus only 48% support for Biden. Whereas Biden was by far the choice of black Democrats, Sanders was strongly the choice both of white Democrats and of Hispanic Democrats.
That brings us to the question of why black voters are so strong and so loyal for Joe Biden:
The commonest hypothesis explaining Blacks’ overwhelming support for Biden is that Biden was Obama’s VP, and as Gallup reported in 2014, Blacks’ “Job Approval” of Obama was 84% while Obama’s “Job Approval” by “All Americans” [including Blacks] was exactly half of that, 42%; so, amongst non-Black Americans, it had to have been far below 42% non-Black support. If Obama’s actual job-performance had been far better for Blacks than for non-Blacks, then this overwhelming job-performance support of Obama from Blacks would be understandable without relying upon a hypothesis that Blacks are clearly racist in their political perceptions — in such a case, they just would have been experiencing more improvement than non-Blacks did — but this clearly wasn’t the case. And in that fact there exists a non-discussed scandal, indicating deep-seated racism amongst most Blacks, a racism that has enabled America’s billionaires to choose both Parties’ nominees, and not merely the Republican Party’s nominee (Trump). Here is that scandal:
Blacks experienced less improvement under Obama than non-Blacks did. The best single article documenting this difference was in the December 2017 Jacobin magazine, and headlined “How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth”. With a performance-record like that, non-racist Blacks would simply despise Obama, as having been an “Uncle Tom.” The high approval-ratings for Obama among Blacks show that Blacks overwhelmingly support him — and that they vote for Biden over Sanders — because the vast majority of Blacks are almost blinded by skin-color (and ignore actual job-performance) in their political perceptions and judgments (such as of Obama, and of Biden who clings to Obama’s ‘legacy’).
But it’s not only that single magazine-article in Jacobin which was onto this high degree of racism amongst America’s Blacks. Even as early as 6 September 2012, Politico had headlined “Gripes aside, blacks still back Obama” and noted the disparity which seemed to be evident, even that early, between Blacks’ perceptions versus the realities — and reported Blacks’ rationalizations for their exceptionally high Presidential performance-ratings of Obama.
Then, on 12 December 2014, Pew Research bannered “Wealth inequality has widened along racial, ethnic lines since end of Great Recession” and noted that, “The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances. Likewise, the wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.” Pew tried to make their presentation of Obama’s pro-White anti-Black performance convoluted enough for it to slip by its readers little noticed, but it was there in the data, quite clearly, for anyone who cared about the matter. Obama was a President for rich Whites, and least of all for Blacks. It’s shown right there (but even more so in this more-comprehensive study).
Then, on 1 November 2016, Turkey’s equivalent to America’s AP, the Anadolu Agency, headlined “Blacks still hoping for change after 2 Obama terms”, and their Washington correspondent opened: “Barack Obama won the White House on a promise of hope and change and with the overwhelming support of black voters. But as he prepares to leave the Oval Office, many of those in his base are still hoping for change. Obama won the 2008 elections by receiving 97 percent of the black votes. His favorability rating among blacks is still above 80 percent.”
Even the high-income-liberal oriented The Atlantic magazine (hardly hostile toward America’s Democratic Party, but more like a mouthpiece for its billionaires) headlined on 22 December 2016, “How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans: The country’s first black president never pursued policies bold enough to close the racial wealth gap.” While that obtusely written article failed to provide any clarity on the nature or extent of Obama’s failure of Blacks’ hopes (such as the Jacobin’s article did provide), it expressed the opinion that Obama wasn’t as good for Blacks as he was for Whites. Such an an Establishmentarian publication, as that, saying this, was, relatively speaking, rather bold.
The way that the ‘progressive’ The Nation magazine ‘explains’ Blacks’ voting so heavily for Biden is by putting forth the racism-accepting deception, that “Black Voters Didn’t Vote for Biden in South Carolina Because They ‘Lack Information’: Black voters opted for Biden because they have no faith that white voters will do the right thing and vote for a true progressive.” Black voters had actually “opted for Biden” because Biden hugged his former boss who was Black — and because symbolism dominated their perceptions; reality did not, at all. Even America’s ‘progressive’ press serves America’s billionaires — the Democratic Party ones.
In order to understand what type of President Barack Obama actually was, one must recognize that he was the best liar in American politics in recent times if not in all of American history. Therefore, making the distinction between mere symbolism (his words) versus reality (his actual policies — what he pushed for behind the scenes, and what he declined to push for even though verbally he spouted it) is essential in order to understand Obama’s Presidency. I have, on many occasions (such as those here just linked-to) reported that Barack Obama lied intensely and pursued policies that benefited banksters at the expense of the poor, but by now there is no reasonable doubt that the vast majority of Black voters just “take a licking and keep on ticking” for the Democratic National Committee and its billionaires’ preferences of candidates and their policies that have led the Democratic Party’s betrayal of the poor, and especially of the Black poor. Quite obviously, now, slick-talking Uncle-Tom Blacks such as Obama (and their White picks such as Joe Biden and, before him, Hillary Clinton) keep them down and the banksters up; it’s not only Republican Party billionaires who are doing that to them; Democratic Party billionaires also do.
Furthermore, this hugging, by Blacks, of Biden, who hugs Obama, certainly cannot be explained by Bernie Sanders having had a record on Black issues that is even worse than that of Joe Biden and of Donald Trump; quite the opposite is the actual case. The superiority of Sanders on specifically Black issues goes well beyond Sanders having always fought against banksters and Biden’s always having been one of Banksters’ key men in Congress, and it goes beyond Biden’s having written the crime-laws to target the most the crimes that were done the most by young black males and that filled our prisons with them — while leaving banksters out of prison and not even dispossessed of their illegally won wealth. In 1963, Sanders was arrested by Chicago police officers for his participation in a demonstration against the City’s pro-segregation policies. What was Joe Biden doing, of a political nature, during that same period? Nothing*, though he was then a college student, just as Sanders then was. Whereas Sanders was risking his personal welfare in order to help to end segregation, Biden was “graduating with a class rank of 506 out of 688. His classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities, and he played halfback with the Blue Hens freshman football team. In 1964, while on spring break in the Bahamas, he met and began dating Neilia Hunter, who was from an affluent background in Skaneateles, New York.” Everything there reflects a social climber, which Biden has been throughout his adult life. And he is profoundly corrupt. Blacks overwhelmingly support a serial-lying anti-Black elitist white bigot, who knows how to charm them.
In short: there’s no excuse for the vast majority of Black voters today being the curse upon progressivism in America as they are if their votes are what causes Biden to win the Party’s nomination — they would then be the people who will have blocked progressivism and continued the control over America by its aristocracy. They will have blocked progressivism by simply not even caring about what it is, and what it means — which certainly is NOT racism. That obtuseness coming from individuals who have suffered so much from racism, is the scandal that no one talks about.
It’s a scandal because of the immense historical impact that it is likely to have. A choice between Trump versus Biden, as opposed to between Trump versus Sanders, is the choice between two candidates both of whom represent America’s billionaires and not the public, as compared to a choice between one candidate who represents the (Republican Party’s) billionaires versus one candidate who represents the public.
Black voters virtually eliminated the possibility of the public being represented on the Presidential line on November 3rd. The Biden campaign’s coming back from the dead seemed extremely unlikely before February 29th, the South Carolina primary.
In fact, on February 2nd, South Carolina’s Post and Courier bannered “Sanders and Steyer closing gap on Biden as SC 2020 presidential primary nears” and reported that, “Biden, who once led by as much as 31 percentage points in South Carolina, holds a 5-point edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll released Sunday. Biden sits at 25 percent to Sanders’ 20 percent.“
On February 18th, NBC News bannered “Sanders opens up double-digit national lead in primary race”.
On February 19th, ABC News headlined “Sanders and Bloomberg rise, Biden falls, with sharp shifts in views of electability: Sanders soars and Biden crashes.” Their Gary Langer gave a detailed analysis of all the polls and the trends.
On February 20th, Chris Cilizza at CNN said
“Bernie Sanders in all likelihood is the nominee, unless it gets taken away from him at the convention,” predicted David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Thursday morning on MSNBC. Plouffe is exactly right.
Even Plouffe had not anticipated such extreme racism as Blacks displayed in their votes on February 29th. If he didn’t, then one may reasonably presume that no one did.
* The Wikipedia article on Biden asserts that, “During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theatre.” but if one clicks onto the footnote there, no evidence comes up, and the reader becomes trapped in a circular dead end, which is what one might reasonably expect to happen if Biden’s team had inserted this otherwise-incongruous assertion in order to counter the clear and published proof that Sanders was an anti-segregation activist while he was at college. The asserted ‘source’ for that ‘anti-segregation sit-in’ is the annual reference-series, Current Biography, which obtains its information mainly from the ‘biographied’ persons themselves, no documentation required, and is therefore a self-promotion vehicle instead of any journalistic enterprise or “proof” of anything, at all. Whatever is written there is basically an edited version of what the individual had written about himself in a questionnaire. And Biden has been exposed as having perpetrated numerous lies about his past; so, this would not be at all unlike him to do. Other than that one incongruous assertion in the Wikipedia article, nothing indicates that, back in the 1960s, Biden was anything other than an ambitious slickster, even then when he was in college, motivated solely by status-seeking, not by serving anyone except his friends and mega-donors. In fact, that same Wikipedia article also notes: “Biden was one of the Senate’s leading opponents of desegregation busing. In his Senate campaign, Biden expressed support for the 1971 Swann decision of the Supreme Court, which supported busing programs to integrate school districts to remedy de jure segregation, but opposed it to remedy de facto segregation, as in Delaware.” Biden supported segregation, so long as it happened ‘naturally’ (such as it did in Delaware), instead of by an explicit law being passed. This was the same viewpoint that the megabanks put forth to ‘justify’ red-lining: whatever is ‘natural’ is good. Progressivism is not ‘natural’. Of course, the mega-banks loved him, and he loved them back. Yet he calls himself “progressive.” Corrupt politicians think that the strong and the smart have a right to exploit the weak and the stupid, but the big problem is that whenever this happens, the public — including many who are even stronger and brighter than the exploiters, but less psychopathic — suffer; not only the weak and stupid that they are currently exploiting do.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.