Newsflash, "working class" is not synonymous with "white."

[Garrett78]

Far too many people don't seem to get (or want to get) that Democrats do better than Republicans among the working class. The problem is nobody ever uses the phrase "Black working class" or "Latino working class." It's as if "working class" - like "real Americans" - is synonymous with white. Well, guess what, it isn't. Although it may be unintentional on the part of some, it's downright racist to suggest that it is. And it feeds into this notion that we must nominate a white man for president in 2020. That's bullshit and it needs to stop.

[sheshe2]

1. Hell yes!

[Progressive Jones]

2. Interesting, but I don't see it the same way.

For me, the "working class" are the working people of all races. I see the phrase "white working class" getting thrown around by the media to describe "potential GOP voters".
I don't know about the notion that anyone "must" nominate a white man for President in 2020.
Whoever gets the nod is going to need a truly Progressive streak. I'm certainly a fan of the women and youth movement going on in the Federal government. After the next two election cycles, we'll be seeing a very different House and Senate than we are accustomed to. This is a good thing.

[Garrett78]

3. "For me, the "working class" are the working people of all races."

That's my point.

Working class people, as a whole, support Democrats more so than Republicans. "Working class" doesn't have anything to do with Trump support. But "white" sure as hell does.

[BaronChocula]

7. One Thousand Times

YES!

[Awsi Dooger]

4. The slide has been among whites without a college degree

White working class has become the term to define that group. Nothing wrong with that. It is shorter and easier and probably comes across as less negative than saying uneducated whites, or similar.

One poll finding and article after another references working class whites. That isn't going away. All the Emerging Democratic Majority projections and similar forecasts regarding demographic shifts used the old numbers in terms of how the white working class voted. Now that the group is significantly more Republican and trending that way all the time, the applicable math has changed and analysts are struggling with it. That's why the term shows up.

If Hispanics were 40% of the vote with a definitive split on which party they prefer based on how much education they have, then there would be imperfect awkward phrasing along those lines also.

And it could easily evolve that way over the next few decades.

[Garrett78]

8. Republican support ranges from poor to extremely wealthy. The common denominator is "white."

That almost nobody ever writes about the Black working class or the Latino working class (and their 'economic anxiety') gives the impression that they don't exist, and that "working class" means "white." In the same way that Republicans and the media use "real Americans" to mean "white."

There are a lot of white working class people who support Democrats (as you said, there's a divide within the working class over education, which plays a significant role in party support). One reason I know Democrats have a lot of "white working class" support is that the vast majority of people in the United States are "working class." And not *all* of our support is coming from persons of color.

Clinton did better than Trump among those who make less than $50,000 per year, but we heard all about how people voted for Trump due to "economic anxiety." When, in fact, racism and sexism are the driving forces behind Trump/Republican support. Numerous studies have confirmed just that.

[Stonepounder]

5. Seems to me that we must nominate someone who can start to repair the damage tRump has done.

Male, Female, White, Red, Black, Yellow, Straight, Gay, Trans, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, I really don't give a damn. Hell the best president in my lifetime (and I go back to Harry Truman) was a black man and we elected a white woman to follow him. (Yeah, we elected Hillary but, just like Gore vs Bush, the GOP cheats.)

It is not sex or color or religion, it is we need someone the country can rally round and follow, and who has a good working knowledge of how our Government works. Beyond that, deponent sayeth not.

[Garrett78]

9. Electing women and persons of color actually does make a big difference.

See here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211473188.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I want the best all-around person, whatever color or gender.

It may be that the best person turns out to be a white male. It may be that it's a black female. We don't even know who is running yet.

[Garrett78]

14. Research makes it clear that those who are more likely to view the world through an equity lens...

...due to being victims of oppression themselves, are much more likely to fight for legislation that addresses oppression. There are always exceptions to every rule, and nobody is saying you need to vote for so-and-so *because* of sex or race. But it is a factor that shouldn't be dismissed.

[Honeycombe8]

17. You're getting too complicated for me.

What legislation to address oppression? Gerrymandering? That is a democratic issue that crosses all Dem Party barriers, and is a state issue. Voter ID is a state law issue.

The Violence Against Women Act is a federal issue. Any Democratic President would sign it.

Most Pres. candidates come from Governors and other leadership positions. Very few come from the Senate or House of Representatives, mainly because those aren't leadership positions, and there is a record of votes to attack. But it could happen. It could have been Al Franken. He was the only strong possibility, but that's up in smoke. He was not a strong possibility because he's a white male, but he does happen to be a white male, and Jewish.

I think it's valid to add a check in the column if the person happens to be of color or female. But that only matters if there is more than one candidate who are so viable that checks in columns matter. That never happens. There's always one that stands out from the crowd, to me.

[Garrett78]

18. Again, read the article...or at least the excerpts that I posted (post #9).

The research is clear.

[rusty quoin]

6. If one voted white, they chose Romney.

If one voted Trump it was most likely Trump. I can see your meaning but not your argument.

[Garrett78]

11. I can't see your meaning or your argument. Sorry, but I didn't understand your point at all.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Can you name who said we have to nominate a "white man" for President?

I've also never heard anyone say or imply that "working class" means white employees. Working class consists of janitors, maids, servers, office clerks, coal miners, etc. Many of that class are people of color.

Maybe you're thinking of "middle class"? It was the middle class or lower middle class in the rust belt who turned from the Democrats and voted for Trump. Is that who you mean? Those middle class who did that were for the most part white. But of course not all middle class are white.

I think we should nominate the best person, whatever the race or ethnicity or religion or gender. That person could be a black female or a white male. We don't know who is running yet.

Are you suggesting we nominate someone based on race or gender, rather than qualifications?

[Garrett78]

13. DU is littered with posts suggesting we need to nominate a white man in order to win back the WH.

Following the 2016 election (and continuing to this day), the right wing and the media produced a narrative that said Trump did wonderfully among "white working class" people and it was due to "economic anxiety" (and some on the left subscribed to and continue to feed that narrative). Unless one has been living in a cave, they can't have not encountered that narrative.

Support for both parties ranges from poor to wealthy (Clinton beat Trump among those who make less than $50,000 per year; Trump did better among the wealthiest; but there's a lot of overlap). The greatest divide is over race. Because of racism, the driving force behind Trump's support, as confirmed by study after study.

Electing more women and persons of color, or those most likely to view the world through an equity lens, really does matter. Here's an article on that very topic: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cohen-why-women-should-elect-women-20160406-story.html#.

By the way, middle class persons are working class persons. Unless you have a very narrow definition of "working class."

[Honeycombe8]

15. I think maybe you are seeing something that isn't there.

I'm on DU almost every day. I haven't seen any post even hint that we should nominate a white male because of race & gender. Now, there have been posts that have suggested this or that person would be good, and the person is a white male. That doesn't equate to "we need to nominate a white male."

I haven't heard any name yet that I thought could win. I want to win. I'll vote for whoever I think can win, and is a Democrat. That may be a white male. Most politicians are white males, so it likely will be a white male, but not necessarily.

I voted for Obama because he was extraordinary and I thought he could win. Not because he was biracial. That was a perk.

I don't see anyone extraordinary at this time who I think is viable as a Presidential candidate. I hope someone steps forward.

[Garrett78]

16. You're not seeing what is there...and there...and there.

Post after post about how we need to nominate Biden in order to win back MI, PA and WI. About how the country isn't ready for a woman, much less a woman of color.

Post after post, such as yours, dismissing the fact that having women and persons of color in power makes a concrete difference for the oppressed in a way that having white men in power does not. The argument goes, "Gender and race don't matter. All that matters is whether the person would be a good president." I'm sure you mean well, but that sort of crap reminds me of color-blind racism. "I don't see color. But, if I did see color, I'd be telling you about how my best friend is Black."

[Honeycombe8]

19. So....you can't identify a post that says we need to nom. a white male?

I'm just telling you the stats. Most Pres candidates come from the pool of governors & business leaders. At this time, almost all of them are white males.

Most Senators are white males.

There are so many more white males than anything else to consider for President, that the odds are that it would be a white male. Obama broke the mold, because he was extraordinary. That's why he won.

I don't see anyone yet who is extraordinary. Of any race or gender.

First, we have to WIN. If we don't win, we can't do anything. It has to be the best person. Someone with political experience. Someone who is likable, at the least. Running for President is very hard and takes someone seasoned to do it, unless he or she is extraordinary, like Obama was.

The only black person whose name is being thrown around is Kamala Harris. So far, I'm not impressed with her and don't like her much. She also ousted Al Franken. Then there's Kirsten Gillibrand. Nope....she ousted Al Franken. Biden? I'm up in the air about him. Bloomberg? I don't know much about him. (I'd vote for whoever is the Dem candidate in the Pres election, of course.)

Stacey Abrams is a good example of an extraordinary candidate for Ga Governor. I would vote for her in a primary for Governor, if I lived in GA. Because she's extraordinary, likable, and just has that something special. That she is a black woman adds to her appeal a lot and I think it's a good thing and about time. But the main reasons I'd vote for her or not because of that. FIRST, you have to have what it takes to win, which means having that something special...the "it" factor that makes a person a leader. They all have it.