Reply #3: Actually I'm quietly confident [View All]

[dmallind]

Wouldn't bet the farm on it, but a few acres sure.

To be honest there's not going to be a whole lot of choice next time. Absent some tectonic shifting one of them is going to be the nominee for the party that's getting all the money and all the support right now, with no good signs for Republicans on the horizon (again absent tectonic shifting).

If I had to subjectively guess I'd say more people would NOT vote for a black man than a white woman but close enough. However the real question is: "How many who would ever vote for ANY Democrat wouldn't vote for a black man or a white woman?" We ain't gonna get the KKK or Promise Keeper vote even if we ran Mr. Aryan Family Man 1994, so the only ones we have to worry about are the misogynists or bigots in the Dem or feasible Dem fold. Now despite our best hopes and efforts that number is certainly not zero, but it's a damn sight lower than the Reps have, and it's also most likely the softest support for the party that would defect anyway. I DO have a slight concern with some of the evangelioal Christian subset of the black population (and the white of course but they won't vote Dem anyway) being a bit hesitant to go against the biblical androcentrism stuff, but luckily as we have seen there is sufficient approval of the Clinton brand in that demographic to do quite well. We may have had a tougher time here with a Boxer or Pelosi candidacy. With the massive tilt towards Democrats amongst black voters though I don't see too much defection, and will be more than offset by the ability of Hillary to bring in some suburban female swing voters who could be persuaded to support her due to gender identity.