@Maleth,
I think one of the main reasons that Clinton didn't beat Obama for the Democratic Party nomination is simply that she's not black and he is. African-Americans are a big chunk of the Democratic Party vote, and there's no way that they were going to vote for her, no matter how much of an increase in spending for social programs she promised or how many times Bill tried to remind them of all they, the Clintons, had done for them in the past. She's also a terrible candidate. Bill Clinton has the "common touch" and can seem sincere even when he's lying through his teeth or has just said two contradictory things in one sentence. She's totally different. She seems as phony as a two dollar bill.
In terms of the general election, it was more of the same. All the blacks, all the minorities, in fact, voted for President Obama, along with all liberal whites and even centrist whites who sincerely hoped, I think, that his election would heal the remaining racial divides.
Just generally, there aren't enough "non-liberal" white votes to win the presidency. The Republicans have to get all the disparate wings of their party together, plus get more than their share of the independents, and hopefully poach some of the Latino vote. George Bush was able to do that; he got more than 30% of the Latino vote, based largely on his record as Governor of Texas and the fact that he didn't threaten to deport people who had been here for decades. McCain and Romney couldn't do it. They couldn't get virtually any of the Latino vote, but perhaps more importantly the "right" wing of the Republican Party thought they were too "centrist", and some of them stayed home. Some Evangelicals also stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. They called it ideological purity; I called it shooting yourself in the foot.
Added to that I just don't think either Romney or McCain really "took it" to the Democrats in those campaigns. Romney could have shredded President Obama in some of those debates, but he didn't do it. I don't know if it's just not his nature or he was afraid to do it for fear of being called a racist. This is what has happened; if you criticize the politics of a black man then you're a racist. Then there's the fact that supposedly a lot of Americans resented Romney for being so rich. Of course, they don't resent Trump for being rich, in fact richer, and having also led a charmed life and gotten a lot of help from his father. I guess the difference is that if you talk like an out of work truck driver who's had too much to drink it's all ok.
@Fire-Haired,
I think it's pretty clear that throwing money at the problem in the form of give away programs doesn't work. I don't know if you know about Jack Kemp. He was a Republican politician who advocated setting up "enterprise zones" in minority communities.
The self-respect that comes from a decently paid job would definitely help, as would the fact that you can support a family on those kinds of jobs instead of having to deal drugs or steal.
Welfare laws should stop penalizing poor families of any race if a man and woman live together with their children. Some changes have been made, I think, but I believe it's still the case that a woman can get more money for herself and her two children if the man's income, small as it is, isn't included because he isn't living in the home.
Minority parents should be given the option of getting vouchers and using them to put their children in charter schools or the better performing Catholic schools instead of forcing them to stay in poorly performing public schools because the public school teachers' unions give the Democrats a lot of donations.
The rest is up to the African-American community leaders, in my opinion, including the pastors. It's beyond me how Christian pastors can ignore the high rates of illegitimacy among the members of their flock, and its detrimental effects on the community, even if they don't believe in the sexual immorality of pre-marital sex. The biggest predictor of poverty in this country is being born to a young, uneducated, single mother. There's nothing cool or hip about it. What a rich movie star might be able to do without major harm to her children, some seventeen year old girl living in public housing on welfare can't. I don't really care if the reason there's more tolerance for this is because the slave system destroyed the black family and made women headed families the norm. It isn't functional. Someone has to be working because you need money to raise a family, and someone has to be able to supervise the children. I'm not saying that the father has to be the one to work, but it's all easier if there are two parents to share both responsibilities. It's also my opinion that children, especially sons perhaps, need fathers. The nuclear family works better than these ad hoc arrangements, like it or not, and whether that sounds too conservative and traditional or not.
Likewise, using drugs may be a great escape, but they cost money, money these people don't have without some sort of illegality, and when you're straight again, your problems are even worse.
When traditional black Republicans try to spread this message they're excoriated by other African Americans. Middle class blacks just stay quiet it seems to me. It also seems to me that these kinds of behavior patterns are becoming more and more prevalent in white communities as well. They're certainly pretty prevalent in a lot of Latino communities. So, all in all I'm not very optimistic about where things are headed.
