Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats need to do better with white voters (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that's a terribly un-progressive view. (14+ / 0-)

    The reason that non-whites at large and whites in states like Minnesota, Vermont, and Oregon are with us is because of what they believe in more than where there ancestors lived between leaving African and coming to the US.

    But really, the question of improving our performance among whites is how, not if, we should try.  I think the best way of doing so is in increasing the share of the electorate that our people make up by making it easier for them to vote, by making it easier to form unions, and by expanding access to and the appeal of higher education.  Those would also have inherent benefits fitting our views, too.

    What other options are there?  Watering down our agenda?  Compromising on issues like choice?  I'm open to a big tent party, but with limits.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:41:42 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The agenda is already so watered down few (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Panama Pete

      believe in it.  I'm certainly not suggesting watering it down.
      What keeps me on the tipping point of leaving the party is its weak support for the safety net, it's increasingly weak support for senior issues, its capitulation to the MIC, and its abandonment of civil liberties.  

      If you want white liberals you have to represent us.  If you want a brown conservative party, don't expect me to vote for it. I might as well vote for the white conservative party.

      I'm just saying I can't think of anything worse than exacerbating the racial divide and making that the rationale for joining a political party.  That makes resolving all issues more difficult and it's already too true.  

      •  And how do the white seniors for whom we won (7+ / 0-)

        safety net vote? They abandoned us for Repubs because of their bigotry. So why expend energy on a segment that puts its tribal interests ahead of its economic interests.

        Non whites are not voting for Dems because of racial solidarity. That is an erroneous belief. African Americans were huge supporters of Republican party for a century until Dems changed to support AAs vested interests.

        So don't think minorities can't leave Dem party if they stop representing their economic interests. White seniors especially committed economic suicide by abandoning the  a party that gave them Social Security & Medicare in order to support a party of bigotry that does ZERO for their economic wellbeing.

        So don't tell me Dems are abandoning safety net when they are the only thing standing between you and a plutocracy. You can go!

        "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

        by zizi on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:27:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There might be a clue in photo ID (4+ / 0-)

          Polls of Minnesota's photo ID amendment showed all age groups supported it except seniors. The amendment definitely had a partisan identification, since Republicans overwhelmingly supported it and Democrats opposed. Somehow it failed with only seniors opposing it. I doubt they voted a straight Democratic ticket, but they surely knew which party was on which side. So maybe if we have the right issues, where we show white seniors we share some salient values (like protecting their right to vote, as seniors clearly figured out they would be hurt by photo ID more than anyone else --- OK, we made a determined effort to make sure they knew) we can win. Albeit it makes an uphill fight every election, but we're not looking for easy, just achievable.

          And we don't have to win majorities of GOP-leaning groups, just bigger minorities.

          •  The other clue there is that older voters aren't (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rosarugosa, Illinois IRV

            stupid.  Both amendments also went down because they lost in older western Hennepin County suburbs where you have older highly educated professional voters who don't share Tea Party values.  

            I think it's more important to think what values do we share with these voters and not assume they all share GOP values which then leads to trying to cater to values they may not even have.

        •  Amazing arrogance (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Illinois IRV, nearzoltan, MasterKey

          The arrogance of some who think they don't need either white or older voters is astonishing.  It is a complete misread of demographics.  It's the same kind of ignorance I see here from people who think they can trash Catholics inside out and backwards because they don't need the Catholic vote -- even though Catholics are almost entirely concentrated in blue states.  

          As it is you are getting astonishing numbers of African Americans and Hispanics but only winning by very small margins because you need tens of millions of white voters particularly in northern swing states.   I can't think of any better way to lose these states than insulting older white voters.

      •  who said non-whites are conservative? (4+ / 0-)

        they largely support the safety net the same as you do.  In appealing to non-white voters we are not compromising our views, we're finding people that share our views and trying to get more of them to vote for us.  I really think your perspective is unrepresentative of white voters.  Democrats are in no danger of losing white liberals broadly anytime soon, regardless of you.  It's white moderates and conservatives that we have been losing.  But if we get more progressive people voting, both whites and nonwhites, it doesn't matter if we lose white moderates and conservatives.  Well, outside of West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky, anyways.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:49:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of non-whites are culturally conservative (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wednesday Bizzare, Panama Pete

          I've definitely met a lot more black homophobes than white ones. Latinos tend to be Catholic and thus anti-choice. They just vote Democratic in spite of those issues because the Republicans are so racist.

          Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

          by RamblinDave on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:37:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  not really true (0+ / 0-)

            most non-whites are economically on the left (heck, many recent immigrants come from countries where they could openly be communists or socialists), and that's the primary reason they are Democrats.  Sure, they have an additional reason to vote against Republicans-that Republicans support racialist policies in many instances, and some even use racialist or racist language, but that's not necessarily a reason to be a Democrat as opposed to just not be a Republican.
            I have personally met many anti-abortion African Americans, but I mean I also know bisexual and openly gay black men, and recent polling has shown that nationally Hispanics are at least as supportive of marriage equality as non-Hispanic whites.  And in my county the number of blacks who are African immigrants outnumbers the number of blacks who are African Americans, and Hispanics and Latinos are diverse groups as well, with different concerns and backgrounds.  These are complex groups.

            ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

            by James Allen on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:58:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting, but... (0+ / 0-)

              ...the critic in me must point out that nothing in your rebuttal contradicts anything I said. I never said anything about where nonwhite voters stand economically, or about African Americans and abortion, or Hispanics and gay marriage, or about how many black voters are immigrants vs. African Americans.

              And yes, these are complex groups. But that was my point to begin with. Some of us on the left tend to think minority voters are with us on all issues, and they aren't.

              Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

              by RamblinDave on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:12:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you said that they were Democrats because (0+ / 0-)

                Republicans are racist, and are Democrats despite their beliefs, I tried giving a better explanation because that's not really the case.

                ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

                by James Allen on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:35:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's an oversimplification at best (0+ / 0-)

                  I said they were not always with us on all issues. Most people, no matter their ethnicity, probably have a somewhat complex calculus as to whom they vote for and why, even if they're not fully aware of it. For socially conservative minorities, the Republicans' racism probably outweighs their disagreements with the Democrats most of the time. But for many of them, those disagreements are real and significant. That, however, is not really the same as saying "they're Democrats because Republicans are racist".

                  Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

                  by RamblinDave on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:13:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Minnesota (0+ / 0-)

      Minnesota is about 91% white, yet Obama got about 58% of the vote in Minnesota. In Minneapolis, a "conservative" neighborhood is one where the Democrat gets only 60% of the vote, yet Minneapolis is 70% white.

      Minnesota hasn't gone Republican since 1972, and shows no sign of trending Republican. If whites were fleeing the Democratic Party, Democrats wouldn't be winning states like Minnesota, Iowa or Wisconsin.

      The story the graph in the diary tells is that people living in cities tend to vote Democratic, while people in rural areas tend to vote Republican. It also happens that the more rural an area is, the more white the population is.

      The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

      by A Citizen on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:22:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's part of the dilemma (0+ / 0-)

        Density might be the important factor, not race. When almost all rural areas are almost all white, it's hard to tell. It matters because if density is the issue, then what appeals to rural whites might not appeal to suburban whites, and we did see that in Minnesota in 2012. Suburbs split on the gay marriage ban but supported photo ID for voting, while rural areas supported the gay marriage ban but opposed photo ID. Democrats definitely do well among whites in the Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, and the inner Twin Cities suburbs.

        So definitely I think it's possible to win a larger minority of white votes, and we don't have to settle for trying to win with just 39%.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site