It's only a good thing if you think Warren is more electable. And considering Warren's base is 70% white and makes 100k a year while Bernie's base is only 50% white, makes 50k year and is made up of the working class, union members, youth and independents.... I think that's a highly questionable assertion.
Do you have a reference for this information?
Like how many people were a part of the survey that would've generated that data?
I am curious about how those stats was generated, but I'm not sure why it matters what the race, ethnicity, or salary of political supporters (Edit: is), particularly with reference to the discussion about how Bernie's health situation is perceived.
To me, that data doesn't say anything about the potential effectiveness of policies or the difference in policy between candidates. It might say something about whom advertising / political messaging is resonating with.
I'm also not so sure that Warren's base earning more money and being more white is a bad thing, as is implied. At least in the part of the country I live in, it tells me that suburban districts that can flip political gang colors are more likely to vote with the blue people. I think this is what we saw in the mid-terms and if that trend is continuing then it's a positive in my book. Those areas are very white and the potential red districts have high household incomes. The more fiscally diverse areas of the city are voting blue regardless; even with low voter turnout.
The union thing:
I've been a union member for about 10 years. To me (if the earnings statistics are true) that is further evidence about the weakness of unions. Some unions have more political power than others - Yes. Mine is fairly progressive (and fairly weak) while I support its existence it has actually done more to inhibit wage growth and personal security than if I were not in a collective bargaining situation (imo). I wish that wasn't true and would like to see the direction of unions get more in line with modern times, but it seems that most union leadership is caught up in the tactics of the 20th and not the 21st century. It isn't MAGA but similarly there seem to be a fair number of people wanting to make the union great again, but want to do so with a vision of the 1950's in mind.
This is a different discussion, but what I've observed is my union not understanding the value of education and professional positions and focusing negotiations on worker safety instead of wage and benefit security. I also feel that many unions sacrificed future members to protect those that were already there in the 80's and 90's as health care skyrocketed and various bubbles (stock gambling) were generating insecurity in retirement funds. All of this has contributed to lower membership and lower faith in unions. There are of course many other factors like the various political efforts, to destabilize unions as well.
Further, there are some unions, the police union for instance, that are so wholly corrupt that they should be disbanded, but they are such a political dookie-storm that no politician dare touch them (imo). Our local police union president sent out political flyers trying to smear the incoming black mayor last election cycle, which was an illegal use of funds. Just this week, in response to an uptick in gun violence, was quoted in our awful local newspapers as saying "...police protection for those that deserve it." I hope that the officers that are decent citizens find a way to take down their own, but I'm not holding my breath.
www.cnn.com
www.npr.org
www.msnbc.com
www.theatlantic.com
theintercept.com
markets.businessinsider.com
theweek.com
www.latimes.com
www.cnn.com
