Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-24-2019, 09:34 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118

Can Democrats perform better with white voters?


There is a lot of talk for decades how the Republican Party must appeal beyond their base of white voters to attract black, Latino and take back Asian voters that they lost in the mid 1990s.

However, the Democratic Party has been underperforming with white voters for a while now.

Especially the white working class.

A lot of liberal commentators say that they don't need white working class voters, like in Fulton County, Arkansas. That they don't need to "chase white voters at the expense of the multicultural coalition". A coalition with different interests.

The last D to win there was Clinton '96.

https://www.americancommunities.org/...class-country/

One of the liberal mantras is "equity is not a zero-sum game".

Then why do a lot of commentators say appealing to white voters expense the multiracial coalition? Isn't it supposed to be everyone coming together as one to win?
  #2  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:00 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Could you give an example of the commentators you're talking about? I've honestly never heard a political analyst saying that ignoring white voters is a good idea, and it is clearly not just by looking at the numbers of white voters vs. black voters.

I think since Obama there's been some pushback against the pre-Obama conventional wisdom that something like nominating a black guy for president would lose you an election by driving away the white vote.

The Dems are proponents of specific policies aimed at racial inequality. They could conceivably try to come up with a policy specifically aimed at advancing white people economically/socially/etc., but the underlying justification isn't there as there aren't the same societal barriers to success for white people as there are for some other races.
  #3  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:26 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Iíve been pondering this issue for some time now and have come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference between Republicans needing to / trying to appeal to minorities vs. Democrats needing to / trying to appeal to white voters. My theory is this. Minorities, just like white people, have the same percentage of people who are fundamentally conservative. The Republicans, due to their embrace of racist white people, have driven the conservative minorities into the Democratís camp. The only thing Republicans have to do to win over naturally conservative minorities is to stop being racist. Democrats, on the other hand, already have the liberal white people in their camp. In order to win over conservative white people, they would have to change their whole platform to appeal to people who are conservative. In other words, Democrats would have to change their position on a whole bunch of issues and become more conservative on things like taxes, gun control, abortion, etc. Republicans just have to stop being racist.
  #4  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:31 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Could you give an example of the commentators you're talking about? I've honestly never heard a political analyst saying that ignoring white voters is a good idea, and it is clearly not just by looking at the numbers of white voters vs. black voters.

I think since Obama there's been some pushback against the pre-Obama conventional wisdom that something like nominating a black guy for president would lose you an election by driving away the white vote.

The Dems are proponents of specific policies aimed at racial inequality. They could conceivably try to come up with a policy specifically aimed at advancing white people economically/socially/etc., but the underlying justification isn't there as there aren't the same societal barriers to success for white people as there are for some other races.
A lot of people on the left says it should be the base vs swing voters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/o...ing-class.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ng-voters.html
  #5  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:33 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The only thing Republicans have to do to win over naturally conservative minorities is to stop being racist.
Frankly I think the GOP would have a really tough time appealing to minorities, simply because of trust and perception. If they took a look at themselves and said "OK what are some positions we take that make minorities think we don't have their best interests" and addressed those, it would take years and possibly decades for minority voters to trust them again.

If they didn't care about actual policy at all and just cared about winning votes in the short-term, I think their best move is to embrace Trump-style Republicanism to solidify the conservative and nationalist white base as much as possible and basically give up on trying to mend fences with minorities. There are obviously long-term considerations as well as the fact that a party is never going to completely abandon policy for a cynical vote-grab.
  #6  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:39 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Frankly I think the GOP would have a really tough time appealing to minorities, simply because of trust and perception. If they took a look at themselves and said "OK what are some positions we take that make minorities think we don't have their best interests" and addressed those, it would take years and possibly decades for minority voters to trust them again.

If they didn't care about actual policy at all and just cared about winning votes in the short-term, I think their best move is to embrace Trump-style Republicanism to solidify the conservative and nationalist white base as much as possible and basically give up on trying to mend fences with minorities. There are obviously long-term considerations as well as the fact that a party is never going to completely abandon policy for a cynical vote-grab.
Yes, the GOP has a serious race problem with minorities. They only have one Republican senator who is a black Republican, Tim Scott.

Black Republicans like JC Watts and Mia Love are no longer in office.

The Democrats have a race problem with whites.

Both parties are racially balkanized.
  #7  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:49 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Frankly I think the GOP would have a really tough time appealing to minorities, simply because of trust and perception. If they took a look at themselves and said "OK what are some positions we take that make minorities think we don't have their best interests" and addressed those, it would take years and possibly decades for minority voters to trust them again.

If they didn't care about actual policy at all and just cared about winning votes in the short-term, I think their best move is to embrace Trump-style Republicanism to solidify the conservative and nationalist white base as much as possible and basically give up on trying to mend fences with minorities. There are obviously long-term considerations as well as the fact that a party is never going to completely abandon policy for a cynical vote-grab.
Itís not about Republican positions on things like tax policy, gun control, etc. Conservatives will naturally gravitate Republican because the Republican platform is already conservative. All they have to do is make those minor feel welcome in the party by getting rid of the racist white people. The only reason they (Republicans) probably havenít done so is because they probably believe that the number of racist white people is greater than the number of conservative minorities.
  #8  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:49 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
A lot of people on the left says it should be the base vs swing voters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/o...ing-class.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...ng-voters.html
I got paywalled by the nyt article, but I just googled the first line in the quoted(?) text and found this, which I think is what you're talking about: https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...voters-107707/

The conclusion is simply wrong. I think the good observation is that Trump brought in a lot of voters who don't normally vote, but my response to that would be that they need to tap into the anger and resentment in this group. There is absolutely no point in the Dems actually trying to get into dogwhistle racism (and the white voters who respond to it are probably never going to vote Democrat), but more of them should learn from Bernie Sanders, who does better in this group by tapping into other forms of resentment.
  #9  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:53 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Yes, the GOP has a serious race problem with minorities. They only have one Republican senator who is a black Republican, Tim Scott.

Black Republicans like JC Watts and Mia Love are no longer in office.

The Democrats have a race problem with whites.

Both parties are racially balkanized.
The Democrats donít have a race problem with white people in the same way. They havenít driven white people away because they are racist against whites. Instead theyíve lost the conservative white people because theyíve gotten rid of the conservative Democrats (except for Joe Manchin). I suppose itís possible that there is a hidden pocket of racist but otherwise liberal white people who vote Republican for race reasons, but thatís probably a very small group.
  #10  
Old 10-24-2019, 10:56 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Itís not about Republican positions on things like tax policy, gun control, etc. Conservatives will naturally gravitate Republican because the Republican platform is already conservative. All they have to do is make those minor feel welcome in the party by getting rid of the racist white people. The only reason they (Republicans) probably havenít done so is because they probably believe that the number of racist white people is greater than the number of conservative minorities.
I think even if they just booted the racists out,* they wouldn't be able to immediately win back trust from minorities. You can flip a switch and change policies, but you can't flip a switch and make people forgive you for everything you used to do to them.

*- Also, the only way they could do this at this point would be to get rid of primaries and just pick the candidates - otherwise they'll get a repeat of 2016, where the primary voters can just ignore the candidates leadership prefers and vote for an overt racist.
  #11  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:03 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
I think even if they just booted the racists out,* they wouldn't be able to immediately win back trust from minorities. You can flip a switch and change policies, but you can't flip a switch and make people forgive you for everything you used to do to them.

*- Also, the only way they could do this at this point would be to get rid of primaries and just pick the candidates - otherwise they'll get a repeat of 2016, where the primary voters can just ignore the candidates leadership prefers and vote for an overt racist.
It is entirely possible that Iíve underestimated the number of racist white people. Maybe the Republicans are correct to continue on their current course, from a numbers perspective.
  #12  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:24 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Which white voters are we talking about?

White voters, like me, who have no problem with being treated equally with everyone else? The Democrats are already reaching those white voters.

Or white voters who think they are entitled to special treatment? I agree the Democrats are telling those voters what they want to hear. But the Democrats are right to do so and shouldn't change on this issue. The Democrats should not be trying to appeal to white supremacy.
  #13  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:27 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Which white voters are we talking about?

White voters, like me, who have no problem with being treated equally with everyone else? The Democrats are already reaching those white voters.

Or white voters who think they are entitled to special treatment? I agree the Democrats are telling those voters what they want to hear. But the Democrats are right to do so and shouldn't change on this issue. The Democrats should not be trying to appeal to white supremacy.
White voters who are conservative but not racist.
  #14  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:28 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
I think even if they just booted the racists out,* they wouldn't be able to immediately win back trust from minorities. You can flip a switch and change policies, but you can't flip a switch and make people forgive you for everything you used to do to them.
Democrats would face the same problem if they were to try to reach out to the white racist vote. Those voters already have a party that's been supporting them. Why would they switch?
  #15  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:31 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Democrats would face the same problem if they were to try to reach out to the white racist vote. Those voters already have a party that's been supporting them. Why would they switch?
I think racist white people are a subset of generally angry, disaffected white people, which is the main group Trump appeals to outside of the GOP base. People like Sanders hits other buttons in this group such as anger at Wall Street, but Clinton failed to. I think there are voters in this group that the Democrats can actually get.
  #16  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:37 PM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
You can flip a switch and change policies, but you can't flip a switch and make people forgive you for everything you used to do to them.
The point I was trying to make is that racism is just one part of the Republican platform. There are lots of minorities who are chased out by the racism but who otherwise agree with the remainder of the Republican platform. OTOH, the racist white people have a long list of grievances with the Democrats, the lack of racism being just one issue.
  #17  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:40 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Which white voters are we talking about?

White voters, like me, who have no problem with being treated equally with everyone else? The Democrats are already reaching those white voters.

Or white voters who think they are entitled to special treatment? I agree the Democrats are telling those voters what they want to hear. But the Democrats are right to do so and shouldn't change on this issue. The Democrats should not be trying to appeal to white supremacy.
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
  #18  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:51 PM
Yankees 1996 Champs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
White voters who are conservative but not racist.
This.

Just because you are a white conservative voter, does not mean that you are racist.

There is a lot of them in working class parts of Queens, Michigan, Wisconsin, NJ that voted for B. Clinton and Obama but stayed home or voted Trump.
  #19  
Old 10-24-2019, 11:54 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
Yes they did
  #20  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:30 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
You must not have listened to the majority of the Deplorables speech. It's ok, I've found a vast number of people that plead happy ignorance have not.
  #21  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:00 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
Nonsense. Hillary Clinton put forward much better plans for economic recovery programs that Donald Trump did.
  #22  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:05 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
White voters who are conservative but not racist.
Can you list what conservative values you think Donald Trump has delivered on that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have delivered better on?

Note: Saying things like "Trump appointed conservative judges" doesn't count unless you can articulate why you think conservative judges are better than other judges.
  #23  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:48 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Can you list what conservative values you think Donald Trump has delivered on that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have delivered better on?

Note: Saying things like "Trump appointed conservative judges" doesn't count unless you can articulate why you think conservative judges are better than other judges.
I can list a lot of issues that conservative but not racist white voters voted on. Being opposed to abortion. Wanting lower taxes. Wanting a smaller federal government. Fewer restrictions on gun ownership. Fewer or no restrictions on activities that make global warming worse. The government not placing restrictions on what they view as their religious rights.

The point is not whether Trump is better at delivering on these things than Clinton would have been. Itís more about what the voters in question believe about the candidates, regardless of the candidates actual beliefs or actions.
  #24  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:01 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
ETA. Even if Trump fails at all those things (and he has succeeded in some of those areas) the conservative white voters still know what side he is on Any failures can be blamed on obstruction by the liberals.
  #25  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:15 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Democrats could use more white voters, sure. But to state that the Republicans poor performance with non-white voters is equal to the Democrats performance with white voters is just simply wrong. LIke, not even close wrong.
  #26  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:04 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
Yes they did -- higher minimum wage, better access to health care, better social services, job training, and much more. But in 2016, many of those voters (just enough to give Trump a win) placed a higher value on Trump's messaging (mostly based on cultural grievances, based on the analysis I've read from Nate Silver) than on a working-class-benefiting economic message.
  #27  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:12 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Democrats could use more white voters, sure. But to state that the Republicans poor performance with non-white voters is equal to the Democrats performance with white voters is just simply wrong. LIke, not even close wrong.
I agree. The reason they aren’t equal is because there are conservative minorities who would vote Republican if they felt welcome by the white voters in the Republican party. The Democrats don’t have a pool of white voters to appeal to who are otherwise liberal but vote Republican because the don’t feel welcome in the Democratic party for reasons of race. I don’t think such a block of voters exists.

ETA. As I’ve already mentioned, what this means is that for the Republicans the solution for their problem is easy. Stop being racist. The solution for the Democrats is a lot more complicated and would mean having to adopt more conservative positions on a whole host of issues.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 10-25-2019 at 08:14 AM.
  #28  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:44 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,002
I'm not sure if people are just taking this point for granted, or maybe some people in this thread are just unaware... the advice the Republicans need to extend their outreach beyond white Americans is NOT about the 2016 election or any fundamental sense of fairness -- it's about betting on an aging horse.

The percentage of white voters in 2016 compared to 2012 dropped by one percent, while the percentage of black voters went up by one, and Hispanic voters went up by two. These trends are expected to continue for the next couple decades.

Republicans continuing to rely on white voters into the future is sort of like someone buying stock in Blockbuster Video in 2010. Blockbuster was still doing fine, but there were enough warning signs that a smart investor should certainly place their bets somewhere else.

Right now, Dems are essentially betting on Netflix in 2005. It's making them good money but they aren't becoming billionaires off of it... in other words, its winning Dems elections a pretty decent amount of the time, but not every time, but it's the long game that counts. Now tell me very clearly why Dems need to invest in Blockbuster.
  #29  
Old 10-25-2019, 08:56 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,010
There's a bit of truth in what both of you are saying.

The democrats don't really have a problem with white voters. They have a problem with white, non-college-educated white voters. And a lot of that is rooted in economic insecurity that is filtered through a sense of loss of power and influence.

The problem there is that those voters are absolutely right. They ARE losing power and influence and they resent it. Rightfully or wrongly, they fear are resent it.

Where D messaging falls down in on responding to that. Presenting an economic plan that I think everyone knows can't actually reverse the trend is pointless. Even if it does do some good it will reverse it for a different generation and not help the people feeling anxiety right now.

These people know they're losing ground, they know it and have been told for several presidential administrations that it'll be fixed and nothing has happened to turn it around. So instead, disillusioned, they turn to more and more extreme solutions promised by more and more extreme leaders.

Because why shouldn't they? The don't feel either side's mainstream is actually going to help them. Largely because, in their heart, they know they CAN'T be helped. They can't be helped without making wholesale changes in their lives and people at all levels of society resist that regardless of circumstance. No long-term, twelve point plan can win these people over because they've heard it before and not seen their lives improve. Why should they believe it this time?
  #30  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:07 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,671
One thing Democrats failed to understand in 2016 is that voters aren't driven solely by economic or pragmatic issues - there is also a cultural and emotional component to things as well. So whether there was an economic message for white Trump voters in 2016 rather misses the point - many felt that they weren't getting the same attention or support as minorities in culture, media, society, etc.
  #31  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One thing Democrats failed to understand in 2016 is that voters aren't driven solely by economic or pragmatic issues - there is also a cultural and emotional component to things as well. So whether there was an economic message for white Trump voters in 2016 rather misses the point - many felt that they weren't getting the same attention or support as minorities in culture, media, society, etc.
Right -- it was about culture, not economics. These voters have been convinced by right-wing TV and radio that "mainstream" culture and society is in favor of minorities, and against them.

It's an age-old tactic -- divide up the disadvantaged folks and pit them against each other so they don't unite and cast out the wealthy and powerful oligarchs. In America it dates back before even 1776 -- a century before, there were actually landowning black families in Virginia, and mixed families, but a few decades later they (free black people) were cast out by law because the wealthy and powerful realized that united poor and working class free blacks and whites were a serious threat to their oligarchy.
  #32  
Old 10-25-2019, 09:24 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One thing Democrats failed to understand in 2016 is that voters aren't driven solely by economic or pragmatic issues - there is also a cultural and emotional component to things as well. So whether there was an economic message for white Trump voters in 2016 rather misses the point - many felt that they weren't getting the same attention or support as minorities in culture, media, society, etc.
It isn't a matter of not understanding the cultural or emotional component, it's a matter of not being able to do anything reasonable about it. If the culture and emotions that are needing to be appealed to are the culture and emotions of racist white people, there isn't much that can be done. Other than joining the Republicans in becoming a racist party, what else can Democrats do about this?
  #33  
Old 10-25-2019, 11:03 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
Democrats did not have an economic message for white voters in 2016.
I don't agree. Black women are arguably the demographic most prone to struggle economically and the most truly working class demographic and they voted for Hillary 96-4.

Plus when you control for income, college educated whites still voted 30-40 points to the left of high school educated whites.

And supposedly when you control for things like authoritarianism, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, etc the education gap among whites disappears.

So it's more of a cultural issue, not an economic one. I don't know what the democrats can do about that.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #34  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
There is a lot of talk for decades how the Republican Party must appeal beyond their base of white voters to attract black, Latino and take back Asian voters that they lost in the mid 1990s.

However, the Democratic Party has been underperforming with white voters for a while now.

Especially the white working class. ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Which white voters are we talking about? ...
As noted by Jonathan Chance, the worsening underperformance is with lesser educated white voters. Numbers.

With more educated whites pretty flat since '92 and R +4 in '16. In '18 midterms among college educated white men still advantage R +4, but college educate women moved to very solid D+20

Meanwhile non-college educated whites went from a slight D preference in '92 and '96 downwards to R +25 in '12, and to R +39(!) in '16. In '18 non-college men in particular are R +34 and women R +24, not as bad but still.

The GOP under Trump's banner is the party of non-college educated whites by wide margin but even in that subgroup it softened in midterms and is nowhere near reflective of the repulsion that the GOP brand has among Blacks (in '18 a D +81 margin).

The D side would be doomed if the GOP did just a modest bit less poorly among Black voters while holding everything else steady. Conversely just doing moderately less poorly among non-college educated white voters, while holding all else steady, would doom the GOP nationally.


HRC's campaign was afraid that including rural Americans (often white) socioeconomic decline as an item of importance would soften support from Black demographics, and banked on getting Obama level support there that she also failed to get. Rural Americans, especially non-college educated men, were left with a sense that their lives do not matter too, not to the D leadership anyway. Without a positive message of inclusive hope for themselves to glom onto they were ripe instead for messages of resentment and othering.

Just do Kerry level of performance, or Obama '08 or even '12, with non-college educated white voters keeping everything else mostly the same and the win is solid for the D. Don't pander but neither relatively ignore or disrespect.
  #35  
Old 10-25-2019, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
... Black Republicans like JC Watts and Mia Love are no longer in office. ...
Mia Love used to be my congressperson. She lost to a white male, not because Republicans didn't support her, but because Democrats (and some independents) didn't.
  #36  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:43 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Mia Love used to be my congressperson. She lost to a white male, not because Republicans didn't support her, but because Democrats (and some independents) didn't.
She lost because it was Democratic wave election with huge turnout. Given the size of the wave she outperformed. Just not by enough.

Midterms 2014 Love was elected 64 to 60K. Her margin was about 3 points while the national popular vote was R+5.7. She underperformed the national popular vote margin by almost 3. But it was enough.

Midterms 2018 she lost 135K to 134K, by just over 0.25%. Nationally the margin was D +8 points. She overperformed the margin by almost 8 points. Not quite enough.

This was an absurdly high turnout midterm election. She lost because more Ds and Independents came out and voted D, true. She lost mostly because in Utah Trump's toxic cloud had become too big for her to get clear of, and because McAdams was a better candidate than Owens had been.
  #37  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
I'm not sure McAdams was a better candidate than Owens. He just ran in a more favorable national environment. If I'm reading your figures correctly, Owens over-performed D's nationally and McAdams under-performed.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-25-2019 at 03:08 PM.
  #38  
Old 10-25-2019, 03:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,787
Depends how you want to look at it I guess. Yes he underperformed the national margin but he got more votes in the 2018 midterm election than Owens had in the '16 presidential cycle one and more than twice as many as as Owens got in the 2014 midterm election. They both got out the votes in 2018 much more than the national environment did.

That said this is getting into hijack territory. I think you'd agree that the GOP in its current flavor, dominated by Trump, is very uninviting to candidates of minority backgrounds and is laser focussed on maxxing out turnout of lower educated whites, especially males, who have embraced Trump's marketing to them, yes?

Trump was I think more pleased with Love losing than he would have been with her having had a win after failing to completely embrace him and his othering policies. He is fine with having "his Black" so long as their lockstep loyalty is complete, but not if they show any sign of discomfort with any of his positions.
  #39  
Old 10-26-2019, 03:58 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankees 1996 Champs View Post
... Then why do a lot of commentators say appealing to white voters expense the multiracial coalition? Isn't it supposed to be everyone coming together as one to win?
The original question is, I think, worth returning to.

It does very much matter what would need to be said, or not said, to appeal to the non-college educated white (NCEW) voters.

In some cases acknowledging and wanting to address issues of racial justice (inclusive of institutional factors) that go beyond economic inequalities alone, pushes NCEW voters away.

In some cases combating the myth that immigrants are (fill in whatever specific negative myth you want) pushes NCEW voters away.

In some cases arguing for gay rights, abortion rights, for treating transgender American with basic decency, for accepting Muslim Americans as fully American as Christian Americans are, all push NCEW voters away.

If appealing to them means avoiding those issues as issues that matter then appealing to them is at the expense of other tent members.

I'm all for an inclusive statement that identifies the real problems and issues they have, how even and maybe even especially in this long running expansion they are being relatively left behind with many dropping out of middle class and with no clear path back up, for treating their beliefs with respect so long as they do not impose those beliefs on others treating them with respect as well, for looking at the relative decline of their current economic state and their prospects for the future and having a plan for that.

But other than that Yankees 1996 Champs, what would you propose the Ds say that would appeal to these voters?
  #40  
Old 10-27-2019, 12:29 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One thing Democrats failed to understand in 2016 is that voters aren't driven solely by economic or pragmatic issues - there is also a cultural and emotional component to things as well. So whether there was an economic message for white Trump voters in 2016 rather misses the point - many felt that they weren't getting the same attention or support as minorities in culture, media, society, etc.
It didn't just happen. That "feeling" developed because Republicans were selling it. And it was lies.

That's pretty much the issue right there. Republicans lie to people. Democrats tell the truth to people. And some people would rather listen to lies.

So should the Democrats start lying as much as the Republicans? I say no.
  #41  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:41 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
A sane Democratic nominee for POTUS has a real chance to earn my vote this year. To do it, the candidate must be pro gun, and have a solid plan to pay for whatever programs/promises the candidate puts forward. Local elections are coming up next week, and I won't be voting for a single GOP candidate--most of them are running on how lovingly they fellate Trump.

Notes: Warren, Bernie, and Beto do not qualify as sane Democratic candidates. Nominate them, or others of their ilk, and I'll vote third party again, likely libertarian.
  #42  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:48 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
A sane Democratic nominee for POTUS has a real chance to earn my vote this year. To do it, the candidate must be pro gun, and have a solid plan to pay for whatever programs/promises the candidate puts forward. Local elections are coming up next week, and I won't be voting for a single GOP candidate--most of them are running on how lovingly they fellate Trump.

Notes: Warren, Bernie, and Beto do not qualify as sane Democratic candidates. Nominate them, or others of their ilk, and I'll vote third party again, likely libertarian.
You really couldn't hold your nose and vote for someone who wasn't totally "pro gun" to help get rid of Trump? Guns are great, don't get me wrong, but they're not everything. In any case, I think one thing is pretty certain: guns aren't going anywhere, regardless of the position of any candidate for President.
  #43  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:56 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
You really couldn't hold your nose and vote for someone who wasn't totally "pro gun" to help get rid of Trump? Guns are great, don't get me wrong, but they're not everything. In any case, I think one thing is pretty certain: guns aren't going anywhere, regardless of the position of any candidate for President.
After Beto's idiotic "Yes, we're coming for your AR-15s" comment, I need to see a flat out rejection of any and all forms of confiscation, gun bans, magazine limits, etc. I know it's possible. My choice for Governor in our local elections is a lifelong Democrat and staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Likewise my choice for Lt. Governor.
  #44  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:01 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Are there any third party candidates yet? I really don't know. As an aside, would you hold them to the same standards you're applying to the Dems?
  #45  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:03 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
After Beto's idiotic "Yes, we're coming for your AR-15s" comment, I need to see a flat out rejection of any and all forms of confiscation, gun bans, magazine limits, etc. I know it's possible. My choice for Governor in our local elections is a lifelong Democrat and staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. Likewise my choice for Lt. Governor.
Okay, serious question. Would you consider Obama a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment?
  #46  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:09 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Are there any third party candidates yet? I really don't know. As an aside, would you hold them to the same standards you're applying to the Dems?
Well, the Libertarian candidate will be pro gun, and as a bonus, pro weed. They aren't likely to have problems paying for anything they propose, because they probably are not going to propose any new programs. Sane is...somewhat less certain, but they aren't going to win anyway. If they nominate a real nutter, I can always write myself in....I usually do that for at least one office per ballot anyway.
  #47  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Okay, serious question. Would you consider Obama a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment?
I wouldn't. He pushed for an AWB, magazine capacity limits, tried to take the RKBA away from SS rep payees, wanted to ban SS109 ammunition, etc.
  #48  
Old 10-28-2019, 12:15 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Okay, serious question. Would you consider Obama a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment?
No. Not even close.

Last edited by Oakminster; 10-28-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #49  
Old 10-28-2019, 02:31 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Itís not about Republican positions on things like tax policy, gun control, etc. Conservatives will naturally gravitate Republican because the Republican platform is already conservative. All they have to do is make those minor feel welcome in the party by getting rid of the racist white people. The only reason they (Republicans) probably havenít done so is because they probably believe that the number of racist white people is greater than the number of conservative minorities.
Not quite. Remember it isn't the general election that determines what the Republican party looks like. It's the primary. The calculation is that there are more racist white people who vote in Republican primaries than there are conservative minorities. This is why it is going to be so hard for the leopard to change its spots. Even if it was generally agreed that the for demographic reasons it would be better for Republicans to broaden their constituency, they won't be able to do so unless their primary base changes, but that won't happen until they broaden their constituency, Catch 22. Facing these facts, gerrymandering and massive voter suppression efforts is the only hope they have to avoid becoming a permanent minority.
  #50  
Old 10-28-2019, 03:03 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
You really couldn't hold your nose and vote for someone who wasn't totally "pro gun" to help get rid of Trump? Guns are great, don't get me wrong, but they're not everything. In any case, I think one thing is pretty certain: guns aren't going anywhere, regardless of the position of any candidate for President.
In Heller, firearms were 1 vote away from being legislated away via new restrictions and attrition. If Clinton were elected, then the two people she would have appointed to SCOTUS would more than likely been sympathetic to her view on firearms. The flood of new cases which would then affirm new laws would be pretty much it for the state of gun culture as it stands now. I have a completely opposite view of the prognosis of where guns have the potential of going than you.

Put it this way - if you could guarantee two more Gorsuch style SCOTUS judges, that would be a pretty compelling argument in favor of Trump. Not sure if I could pull that lever, but it would be quite appealing.

***

As to the thread itself, I'd rather the issue be framed more about performing better with voters in general. I see very few issues that are targeted toward a particular ethnicity. I find the whole notion of white people issues, black people issues, API issues, etc. to be pretty offensive actually.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017