Hillary went straight demographic warfare

Soft jazz, gentle soapy massage. Closeup.

She won’t sweep up all. But Obama won in 2012 to no degree by virtue of the fact that he won the female demographic by 12 percentage points; Romney won males by 8. A 20 point gender gap favoring the Democrat

Whoever is the GOP candidate may win males by the same 8 or maybe a bit more; but HRC will likely do better than Obama did with women voters and if the percent of voters who bother to vote isn’t even more skewed to the XX side I’ll be a bit surprised.

Note: Obama benefited form a gender gap with white women but he still lost that sub-demographic even while dominating in the female demographic. He lost white males 62 to 35 (and HRC may not do much better, no matter how much she pandered to them) and white women 56 to 42 (HRC should do significantly better).

Again, you’d need to have idiots managing your campaign to not take advantage of the fact that the GOP has staked out white males as their ticket to success. And they dominated that demographic last time by as much as is realistically possible to do. Clinton can possibly eke a majority of white females (that Obama could not get) while winning every non-white demographic, especially non-white females. Probably she’ll do no worse than Obama in white males too.

OMG, her team is trying to win by using the usual set of tools, building a majority coalition of supporters. No fair! Wah! That’s ruthless!

I did it all for you!

Lol, if anything Hillary is a stronger candidate among white working-class males (and whites generally) that Obama.

Are you sure about those proportions? It is not uncommon for juveniles of the species to display visible traits normally associated with adults. (Says the grizzled white male who’s watching a cartoon on another monitor.)

stringbean, very seriously answer me this - how much worse with white males do you think Clinton will do than the 62 to 35 drumming Obama weathered on his way to victory in 2012?

And what would a non-pandering selling her candidacy to them look like?

My guess is that it would be a message focused on the economy and building opportunity that will last across generations. The same message that appeals to the rest of her coalition.

Will she do better with white males in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, etc., than Obama did? Probably. She may still lose the demographic but not likely by as much.

And you’re getting in early, to avoid the rush?

Bill O’Reilly is claiming that it’s “open season” on white men and Christians. He goes on to say that Clinton could use this to her advantage. He says that his show will be fair to Clinton unless she “embraces smear merchants” like Media Matters, in which case he’ll have something to say about it, by golly.

The wells all come pre-poisoned in O’Reilly’s world.

All these assertions about demographics and strategy are fine, and perhaps worth discussing, but what do they have to do with the video you linked in the OP?

“Ruthless pandering”… you mean politics? Still don’t get what this has to do with the video, though – were 5 adult white males not enough? If not, how many would have been enough for you?

I’m only the misogynistic paternalist seething with hatred if Hillary were the Mr. Smith out to fix a broken Washington.

As such, I see her as a calculated phony who stands for nothing and will paint any makeup on her ugly face to win. At least Obama had Hope and Change and truly believed in it. Hillary wants to run on a Warren-lite platform it seems. Where has that been for the past 30 years of her stellar political career?

This election will be blatant demographic warfare. I’m calling it right now because that ad clearly has drawn the lines in the sand.

You just wait and see.

What about the ad “clearly has drawn the lines in the sand”? We keep asking you about the ad, and you are just ignoring it – what was in the ad that you didn’t like? Which people shouldn’t have been in it? Were the 5 white males not enough? Were they not white enough? What was it? I don’t understand.

Take a look at the Republican convention. Almost every single black Republican elected office holder , from dog catcher on up , will get a speaking slot. They know that, although they are primarily a white male party, they have to show some diversity. Even the seating order will try to showcase some diversity. The delegation from South Dakota won’t be sitting front row and center in the convention hall.

:smiley: Really… Newsflash: even Republicans have said “We can’t just be the party of angry old white men”. Is the Paul/Rubio/etc. propaganda not displaying a variety of population segments?

This was weak, OP. Setting aside the OMG a Career Politician angle, what is portrayed there does not support your “demographic warfare” claim.

Mine, too, Procrustus.

This white male, after watching that ad, got just a little emotional over how wonderful an image of American life it presented.

Even Jindal has observed they have to “stop being the stupid party”. Not that he’s doing his part.

Anyway, it’s morning in America. :wink:

It is only divisive and ugly if a Republican does it.

Hillary has been around long enough that she won’t get the automatic pass that Obama did. The SDMB will deny everything, frantically and past the point of sense, but she is starting to smell vaguely of Nixon - so paranoid about covering everything up that she keeps interest levels high. The electorate doesn’t find her trustworthy (and rightly so), and she isn’t very appealing. People bought the hope and change thing from Obama, because he hadn’t done anything and they could believe in the fable. Nobody is buying that from Hillary unless they order the liberal Flavor-Aid by the barrel.

She will probably win the nomination, and she might win the election. But she might not.

I’m still hoping for a qualified and honest candidate runs, like Romney.


Hillary’s team would love that.

Shodan, I often respect your opinion.

Did you think the ad was divisive and ugly? Do you think Hillary is doing anything divisive and ugly, and if so, what, specifically?