True dat.
Openly wishing for demographic change to win future elections is one reason why democrats are having a hard time with current elections.
I don’t hear or see much “wishing”. It’s more looking at the numbers and stating basic analysis, one that is shared by many who a few years ago were of power in the GOP as well. Assuming that each party keeps its current share and turnouts of each demographic favors the Ds in the future and in the present makes many lower SES white voters discomforted. Labeling that discomfort as racism alienates them further.
But non-college whites have been shifting to the GOP. The shift of more educated whites the other way has moderated the effects, but there is still a lot of potential downside if Democrats don’t make it crystal clear straight white guys are welcome and valued in the big tent.
It’s interesting to look at the vote-predicting demographics. Back in Gore v Bush and Kerry v Bush it was church attendance that was a strong indicator of voting: Church-goers voted for Bush; the less religious voted for the D.
But now, education has become one of the best predictors. PhDs voted for Hillary; high schoolers and dropouts voted for Trump.
That’s not a “but”, it’s an “and”. It is what follows. And mixed into that is that non-college educated white is a decreasing portion of the relatively decreasing white demographic. One that is fairly consistently on the losing side of increasing wealth inequality. Straight white males feeling unwelcome is not the issue IMHO. No more than ever. Not as long as it is well educated straight white male.
This is where economic populism potentially resonates as a message. But messaging that in a way that doesn’t diminish the independent very real and significant impacts of other identity issues (institutional racism, sexism, and such) is tricky to say the least.
The thing about being a straight white male is, we’re welcomed everywhere. Some of us just have a hard time accepting that it doesn’t work that way for everyone.
Individual-1 and Un are in agreement about what kind of person Joe Biden is. Will this enhance his popularity?
When I was a Fed, I had to go into a couple of bad crime ridden Black neighborhoods. Trust me, as a white guy, I was NOT 'welcome".
Not in some vocal, highly visible “woke” sectors, we aren’t.
The first debate is 26 and 27 June in Miami and we’re into the mad scramble to qualify. The DNC is limiting the debate to 20 total (10 per night.) Rules for June and July’s debates require either making 1% in three recognized national polls or having contributions from 65,000 individual donors. (There’s and additional requirement for donors that the 65k includes at least 200 donors in 20 different states.) Meeting one is enough…unless they have to winnow the debate field to the hard limit of 20. If they have to winnow qualified candidates those that meet both get priority. Polling averages if the tie breaker if that still doesn’t winnow the field enough.
An article, that’s mostly about Gillibrand, includes where candidates are on meeting qualifications as of May 31st.
Those already meeting both criteria:
- Biden
- Booker
- Buttigieg
- Castro
- Gabbard
- Harris
- Inslee
- Klobuchar
- O’Rourke
- Sanders
- Warren
- Williamson
- Yang
Those meeting only the polling requirement:
- Bullock
- De Blasio
- Delaney
- Gillibrand
- Hickenlooper
- Ryan
- Swalwell
There’s nobody meeting only the donor requirement. Those meeting neither requirement who would currently be excluded from the first debate:
- Bennet
- Gravel
- Messam
- Moulton
For those that haven’t done the count and the math currently there’s 20 candidates that have met one or both criteria for inclusion. Those only meeting the polling criteria continue to be at risk as the last push to qualify before the cutoff happens. Presumably those already dual qualified are pretty safe and will be participating.
Man, Gillibrand’s campaign really shit the bed. Until she announced, I feel like she was always listed among the top five contenders.
Thing is that some people have much more support in a smallish group of people that some see lots of in the social media feeds than they have more broadly. The punditocracy gets overly influenced by those social media feeds until actual polling reality checks them.
Gillibrand was like that. If one went by social media feeds one would have thought she had a broad base of support. Real world she never did and of those who knew of her many had unfavorable thoughts.
I wasn’t expecting her to have much support, because so many people were mad at her about Al Franken. (Personally, I was not only on her side on that, I was one of Franken’s constituents and sent him a constituent-only email–that you have to be within the state’s boundaries to send–calling on him to step down.)
I’m sure things are different in San Jose, but in my neck of the woods, it sure seemed like Sanders was getting a lot of enthusiasm that Clinton wasn’t. I know a number of Russians, and these weren’t Russians.
Oh, and Hillary lost my state about 60-40 in the general. So if that’s what kind of candidate you think the Democratic Party should nominate, I’d feel safer to just do the opposite of what you say, OK?
If Hillary lost your state by 20 points, it’s safe to say it is irrelevant to the outcome of the 2020 election.
Missouri and Indiana also fit, but I’ll guess Kansas (“Tornado Alley”).
And, yes: come back when it makes a smidgen of difference which Democrat your state supports.
Interesting that Biden is skipping the California convention.
It’s Missouri. It had a Democratic governor from 2008 to 2016. It seems to have gotten redder since the 1990’s. Maybe whatever kind of Democrat the Clintons are is political poison.
Hillary lost the industrial Midwest too. You need to stop writing entire swaths of the country off and deal with this.
Making decisions based on anecdotal impressions of who does better in deep red states is not the winning tactic.
Indeed writing off rural and industrial Midwest demographics is also not the most likely winning tactic either.