African American
Related: About this forumWA Post: Hillary has a diverse coalition, so she doesn't need a majority of white men
The NYTimes recently printed an article about Hillary's "problem" with white men. WA Post doesn't think it's a problem that will matter, because her support is so broad.
The WA Post didn't mention, but could have, that Mitt Romney won the majority of white men AND white women -- but that wasn't enough to get him elected. And thanks to an even bigger gender gap this year, Hillary is winning majorities of all races of women, including white women.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/18/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-white-men/
Its true that Clinton has done worse among white male voters in this years primaries than she did in 2008. But we should be extremely wary of taking voting results in primaries and extrapolating them out to the general election. For starters, the overwhelming majority of people who vote in primaries will vote for their partys nominee in November, whether they supported him/her in the primary or not. Furthermore, the general electorate is a completely different group of people than the primary electorate, and theyll be presented with a different choice.
The Times article talks to some white men who dont like Clinton, and its always worthwhile to hear those individual voices in order to understand why certain people vote the way they do. But when you pull back to the electorate as a whole, you realize that there just arent enough votes among white men for Republicans to mine. The reason is simple: theyve already got nearly all theyre going to get. While some people entertain the fantasy that there are huge numbers of Reagan Democrats just waiting to cross over, the Reagan Democrats are gone. They all either died (it was 36 years ago that they were identified, remember) or just became Republicans. The GOP already has them, and it isnt enough.
Finally, the idea that the Democrats cant maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition unless they get more votes from white men is somewhere between absurd and insane. We have two main parties in this country. One of them reflects Americas diversity, getting its votes from a combination of whites, blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and people of other ethnicities. Its nominee got 55 percent of his votes in 2012 from whites smaller than their proportion of the population as a whole, but still a majority of those who voted for him.
The other party is almost entirely white; its nominee got 90 percent of his votes from whites in 2012. And were supposed to believe that if that party gets even more white, then it will be the one thats broad-based?
Obviously, every candidate would like to get strong support from every demographic group. But if theres one group Hillary Clinton can afford not to worry too much about, its white men. Most of them are going to vote against her anyway, and even if they do, she still would have a decent chance of winning the election.
Then I won't feel bad when I don't vote for her. Her majesty doesn't need my vote.
Cha
(295,899 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... of the others flexing our collective powers.
America will endure as she has endured
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as the diversification of America forces you to come to terms with your lack of awareness of anything but supremacy.
I wish you well.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Please take your reactionary bullshit elsewhere.
Thanks.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,119 posts)I only regret the NM primary isn't until June and I expect her to have a majority of delegates wrapped up by then.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)because I hate caucuses, but I'll be there for her on March 26.
My big regret is that our state dems went to court to enforce their right to choose delegates at caucuses instead of primaries -- after the majority of voters in the state (including me) passed a referendum setting up a primary.
So we have a "beauty contest" primary AFTER the caucuses that means absolutely nothing.
Kind of Blue
(8,709 posts)me, too, here in California but still looking forward to it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The Civil Rights Act passed, among those were the Dixiecrats. It is the angry old white men club, they grew up hating and it remains. Yes, they are dying off but there is still quiet a number left. Republicans have some of the old fiscal bunch left but now it is the haters and anti-abortionists. Democrats are better than the hate group, together there may be an avenue to getting wages increased, better jobs, health care, better education and more.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)by the time we get to Indiana, yes, I'll be voting for her
I expect this all to be wrapped up in April, and my primary isn't until May.
Cha
(295,899 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... progressive that's just folk having a temper tantrum
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(white/males) folks are feeling real insecurities that, while wrapped in the cloak of income inequality, boils down to a loss of their hegemony.
And more sad, that means in order for them to confront their insecurity, they will have to confront their racial attitudes, for themselves ... that is going to be a painful process.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)wildeyed
(11,240 posts)of sticking with the Obama coalition. I knew the RW was going to have fits, but am totally amazed watching it up close in NC. They going to try to loot it as much as they can and then burn it to the ground, rather than share the power around a little bit. And this is supposedly a "New South" state where we care more about making money than being racist.
But I am gobsmacked by the attitudes of "progressive" whites. I want to stare each and everyone in the eyes, shake them hard, tell them we are THIS CLOSE to winning ALL marbles for the Left Team. We can have single payer, good schools, higher minimum wage. It is all within our grasp within the next decade if we can keep the fusion coalition intact. But you have to look at your privilege and act nice, just a little. And it doesn't hurt as much as they think, and a fair bit less than constantly trying to avoid the issue, IMO. But how to convince THEM? It seems that many are literally dying of sadness over the issue of their pride, and would rather do that than adapt to a new reality.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yesterday (I think it was), there was a parody piece about some RW white working class guy saying that he was happy being poor, if the Black and Brown folks remained poorer. I think this thinking is not limited to the RW working class white ... only slightly different. White progressives seem to be saying, "I'm happy with everyone being poor, if I don't get what I want." Or, "I don't have to work with you for our mutual gain; you have to work with me for my gain ... which you will eventually share."
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)When Hillary clinches the Democratic nomination, and is (fingers crossed!) elected President.
K&R.
Coolest Ranger
(2,034 posts)those of us who are wise enough and who lived when she was first lady won't let that stuff bother us