The Democrat Caucasian Vote

[ouroboros]

Lyndon Johnson famously stated (I paraphrase) that with the institution of the Civil Rights bill, he had "lost the South" for the Democrats for years to come.

This seems to be supported by current stats: one 2012 study claims that "since 1976, Democrats have never won white voters. Jimmy Carter, a Southerner, came the closest in 1976, winning 48% of it."

Now, the same study also argues that the total white vote has become less numerically imposing in recent years, but the question remains as to why so much of the "white vote" goes to the Republican party.

Is it only, like Johnson said, due to perceived racial loyalties? Or does it have to do with other factors relating to the economic, foreign policy, etc? But if any of these factors were writ in stone as it were, then no Democratic president could ever win even the 40-percent average for the white vote.

What skews the vote so heavily toward Republicans?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Whites are fundamentally conservative on account of being the historically dominant majority. When your on the cusp of losing power, you're going to be conservative. Trump really tapped into that fear that whites are losing "their" America. You still hear Republicans talking about taking back their country.

Historically no serious scholar would dispute that America's white majority was overwhelmingly racist. People today like to think it was just the South with Jim Crow. Never mind racist federal laws like the Immigration Act of 1924, countless unspoken rules or the interment of the Japanese American.

America (read: America's white majority) has always been a fundamentally racist country.

Only since the 20th century has over racism become unfashionable, but it's legacy is still alive.

Liberals like to delude themselves in either regionalizing racism or thinking of it as an obsolete concept. In reality, it's alive and well. It got a vile demagogue like Trump elected. 53% of white women voted for President ***** Grabber.

The numbers don't lie.

 

[Sithborg]

Yes, racism. I mean, the country lost it's collective mind when it elected a black man.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It says a lot about America that Obama is considered to be "black," when he's really half black and was largely raised by his quintessentially white Kansan grandparents (their ancestors literally landed on Plymouth rock).

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'd say the biggest problem is that the Democrats don't even bother to try for the white vote.

 

[Matt]

You know, H_H may be on to something. A friend of mine once said, during the height of the Bush administration: "the problem with the Democrats is that they are more concerned with making sure a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parents knowing than they are with fighting to give Americans jobs."

While I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the sentiment, there's something to be said for that. The reason that Democrats lose the white vote is because, while they don't ignore it entirely, as H_H suggested, they ignore the issues that matter to the majority of white voters.

The majority of white voters consist of blue collar, middle-aged, middle-class Americans. These are the people who were left behind in the 90s as American labor died. During that time, the Democrats, who held a fairly large degree of power, did nothing. They claimed to be the party of the working man, but got way too caught up in social issues (not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but the Party has to be more than just that). This trend has continued to today.

2016 is where it came to a head. While Trump spoke about jobs (no matter how ridiculously he did so, he still spoke about it), Clinton spoke about glass ceilings, bad hombres, and ***** grabbing. These aren't issues that blue collar, middle-class white Americans prioritize highly. Largely due to the fact, as Thundercrack explained, blue collar, middle-aged, middle-class white Americans have been the historic majority in this country and those on top tend to skew conservative as they don't want their power-structure disrupted by empowering others. Therefore, civil rights issues just don't speak as loudly to that demographic. Jobs do...especially as their jobs become obsolete.

Mind you, this will balance out. As GenXers and Millennials continue to age they will move into higher levels of the work force, and eventually become the middle-aged, middle-class majority. This will lead to a shift in the white demographic as GenXers and Millennials skew liberal socially and will be less concerned, as a whole, with the dissipation of blue collar jobs as these generations have never latched onto said jobs, because those industries were on the way out as those generations came into the workforce. So as the majority of middle-aged, middle-class, white voters changes from Baby Boomer to GenX and Millennial, we will see a shift in how that demographic votes.

 

[AvengerPA]

Yesterday's Democrat cared about the workers more. Bill Clinton and his New Democrats only care about abortion.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You can argue that policy wise the Democrats may care about whites, but when it comes to campaign strategy, it has been fatally flawed. During the Obama years Democrats have been acting that all they need to do is appeal to single women, blacks, Latinos, and the youth vote because the only thing that mattered was the White House. They look down on Southern and Appalachian whites as racist rednecks while neglecting whites throughout the Midwest and West. Frankly, as Matt said, when it comes to issues such as LGBT rights, abortion, etc. most people see those issues as settled in that they are legal, so they don't care about those issues as much. And the Democrats really botched the way they handled the Black Lives Matter movement. But the really aren't communicating well on security and the economy.

And just look at the Democratic leadership: a woman from San Francisco, a Jew from the Bronx, a Latino from the Baltimore area, with the former President a black guy from Chicago. Just where are the Democrats from that white working class from the rural and suburban areas?

 

[Matt]

You can argue that policy wise the Democrats may care about whites, but when it comes to campaign strategy, it has been fatally flawed. During the Obama years Democrats have been acting that all they need to do is appeal to single women, blacks, Latinos, and the youth vote because the only thing that mattered was the White House. They look down on Southern and Appalachian whites as racist rednecks while neglecting whites throughout the Midwest and West. Frankly, as Matt said, when it comes to issues such as LGBT rights, abortion, etc. most people see those issues as settled in that they are legal, so they don't care about those issues as much. And the Democrats really botched the way they handled the Black Lives Matter movement. But the really aren't communicating well on security and the economy.

And just look at the Democratic leadership: a woman from San Francisco, a Jew from the Bronx, a Latino from the Baltimore area, with the former President a black guy from Chicago. Just where are the Democrats from that white working class from the rural and suburban areas?

This is why Biden losing his son, and choosing not to run as a result, was such a blow to the Party. Biden, not Sanders, was exactly the person that the Democrats needed to mend the gap. Sanders would've quickly worn out his welcome among the demographic you describe with his constant pontificating about the need for a welfare state. While the concept of a limited welfare state has merit, it isn't the message that the working class, who are struggling to make ends meet, wants to hear. They don't want to hear that they have to pick a tab for, what they perceive to be, unemployed slackers. Factor in the boatload of opposition research and the whole communist thing and Sanders would've been destroyed. Biden on the other hand is basically the exact type of person the Democrats need to appeal to. Blue collar, middle class background. He is plain spoken, doesn't have that perceived DC elitist perception. He's really the guy that they needed.

Its interesting, that book on Clinton's campaign, Shattered, released today. It mentions that almost as big of a factor in Biden not running as his son's death was Obama's "silent rebuke" of his presidential aspirations, opting to throw his hat behind Hillary, whom Obama staffers believed stood a better chance. I wonder if Obama sat Biden down and said "Beau would want this, you have my full support," if we'd be talking about President Biden's first 100 days rather than President Trump's?

 

[hippie_hunter]

This is why Biden losing his son, and choosing not to run as a result, was such a blow to the Party. Biden, not Sanders, was exactly the person that the Democrats needed to mend the gap. Sanders would've quickly worn out his welcome among the demographic you describe with his constant pontificating about the need for a welfare state. While the concept of a limited welfare state has merit, it isn't the message that the working class, who are struggling to make ends meet, wants to hear. They don't want to hear that they have to pick a tab for, what they perceive to be, unemployed slackers. Factor in the boatload of opposition research and the whole communist thing and Sanders would've been destroyed. Biden on the other hand is basically the exact type of person the Democrats need to appeal to. Blue collar, middle class background. He is plain spoken, doesn't have that perceived DC elitist perception. He's really the guy that they needed.

I agree with you 100% there. People like Biden are the messengers that Democrats need, not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Matt]

I agree with you 100% there. People like Biden are the messengers that Democrats need, not Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Its why Sherrod Brown, if he can gain some traction, is who Trump ought to be most frightened of going into 2020. Brown, a popular Senator from the crucial swing state of Ohio, has the working class, white roots that the Democrats need to appeal to combined with the political stances of a Sanders type of figure, but he conceals it behind his kind of "aww shucks" demeanor rather than jumping up on a soap box and lecturing like Warren or Sanders are prone to doing. He is more about discussing than pontificating. As such, moderates/independents will love him, leftists will adore him, and Republicans will be unable to stop him. Further, he is the antithesis of Trump (the antics of whom Americans are already worn out by). He is a quiet, plain spoken but intelligent, down to Earth guy with a very unassuming and kindly nature about him. He is basically Jed Bartlett. Republicans ought to be very afraid of him. If he can gain traction, he will unseat Trump. Of course, he isn't doing nearly enough to build his national brand so that is a big if.

 

[hellified]

I'd say the biggest problem is that the Democrats don't even bother to try for the white vote.

the black community feels the same way about republicans

 

[Matt]

the black community feels the same way about republicans

I'm sure they do. But, and this is awful to say but a pragmatic reality none-the-less, Republicans can afford to ignore the black vote. Black voters simply do not have political power in this country, in and of themselves. Its the drawback of being a minority in a democracy. Republicans can win on white voters alone. Conversely, Democrats can't win without white voters.

 

[hellified]

This is why Biden losing his son, and choosing not to run as a result, was such a blow to the Party. Biden, not Sanders, was exactly the person that the Democrats needed to mend the gap. Sanders would've quickly worn out his welcome among the demographic you describe with his constant pontificating about the need for a welfare state. While the concept of a limited welfare state has merit, it isn't the message that the working class, who are struggling to make ends meet, wants to hear. They don't want to hear that they have to pick a tab for, what they perceive to be, unemployed slackers. Factor in the boatload of opposition research and the whole communist thing and Sanders would've been destroyed. Biden on the other hand is basically the exact type of person the Democrats need to appeal to. Blue collar, middle class background. He is plain spoken, doesn't have that perceived DC elitist perception. He's really the guy that they needed.

Its interesting, that book on Clinton's campaign, Shattered, released today. It mentions that almost as big of a factor in Biden not running as his son's death was Obama's "silent rebuke" of his presidential aspirations, opting to throw his hat behind Hillary, whom Obama staffers believed stood a better chance. I wonder if Obama sat Biden down and said "Beau would want this, you have my full support," if we'd be talking about President Biden's first 100 days rather than President Trump's?

lets not have revisionist history..joe biden ran for president twice before in 1987 and 2007. if he was going to do it he would have done it.

 

[Matt]

lets not have revisionist history..joe biden ran for president twice before in 1987 and 2007. if he was going to do it he would have done it.

Wait...what? I don't understand what you're saying. If Biden was going to run, he was going to run because he has before? That logic doesn't make sense. 1988 and 2008 Biden weren't dealing with a dead son. Circumstances change. Just because someone is willing to do something once, doesn't mean they are willing to do it again in every circumstance. Internal and external factors impact every decision we make.

 

[hellified]

Wait...what? I don't understand what you're saying. If Biden was going to run, he was going to run because he has before? That logic doesn't make sense. 1988 and 2008 Biden weren't dealing with a dead son. Circumstances change. Just because someone is willing to do something once, doesn't mean they are willing to do it again in every circumstance. Internal and external factors impact every decision we make.

I meant if he was going to be president it would have happened..theres the general convention that you can only run twice because if you didn't connect with people the first two times then its highly unlikely that its going to happen a third. You would have to go back to the 1800s to find a person who ran and won after losing two other bids.

Sympathy for bidens son wouldn't have gotten thru this campaign season not against trump...for better or worse trump was viewed as a change agent while hillary and biden are establishment... ironically all the qualities you showed about biden is why obama picked him..he appealed to white working class more than obama himself but that quality couldn't propel him to oval office by itself.

 

[hippie_hunter]

the black community feels the same way about republicans

Because it's true, they don't. But Matt is right, Republicans can afford to ignore the black vote, Democrats cannot afford to ignore the white vote.

 

[Matt]

I meant if he was going to be president it would have happened..theres the general convention that you can only run twice because if you didn't connect with people the first two times then its highly unlikely that its going to happen a third. You would have to go back to the 1800s to find a person who ran and won after losing two other bids.

Sympathy for bidens son wouldn't have gotten thru this campaign season not against trump...for better or worse trump was viewed as a change agent while hillary and biden are establishment... ironically all the qualities you showed about biden is why obama picked him..he appealed to white working class more than obama himself but that quality couldn't propel him to oval office by itself.

Yeah, there is absolutely no such "convention" other than the one you just pulled out of your ass. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it is a "convention." By that logic, its a "convention" that reality stars with no public service don't become President, yet here we are. Heck, its hardly a "convention" considering party leaders courted Al Gore to run for a third time in 2004 and 2008. Gore simply declined. If it were a "convention" I don't think that Democratic leadership would've been lining up at Gore's doorstep.

In fact, your assertion is especially absurd considering primaries weren't a thing until about 50 years ago. As such, the only person who ran for President was the nominee. Therefore, it would've been unheard of simply because there were only 2 candidates every four years, as opposed to this most recent election where there were about 20 candidates.

Finally, to the extent that you suggest that Biden has made his pitch and been twice rejected, you are just flat out wrong. Biden didn't lose because people considered him and voted against him. In the '88 election, Biden withdrew before a single vote was cast. Largely due to trumped up faux-scandals. In fact, some historians would argue that Biden's '88 downfall was the early work of the Bush political machine, as many viewed Biden as the strongest candidate in the Democratic field. Destroying him before he could truly run would be to Bush's advantage and, if nothing else, GOP elders likely played a role in promulgating the "scandals."

As to his 2008 run, it was never a real run. Biden never intended to win. That race was always between Clinton and Obama with Edwards as a dark horse prior to his scandal. What Biden was doing in 2008 was a running for Vice-President or SecState. He threw his name in the primary to get name recognition so as to make himself an attractive choice for Clinton or Obama (whomever the eventual nominee turned out to be).

My point is, the American people have never truly been faced with a decision regarding a Biden presidency, making your assertion all the more absurd.

 

[hellified]

Yeah, there is absolutely no such "convention" other than the one you just pulled out of your ass. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it is a "convention." By that logic, its a "convention" that reality stars with no public service don't become President, yet here we are. Heck, its hardly a "convention" considering party leaders courted Al Gore to run for a third time in 2004 and 2008. Gore simply declined. If it were a "convention" I don't think that Democratic leadership would've been lining up at Gore's doorstep.

In fact, your assertion is especially absurd considering primaries weren't a thing until about 50 years ago. As such, the only person who ran for President was the nominee. Therefore, it would've been unheard of simply because there were only 2 candidates every four years, as opposed to this most recent election where there were about 20 candidates.

Finally, to the extent that you suggest that Biden has made his pitch and been twice rejected, you are just flat out wrong. Biden didn't lose because people considered him and voted against him. In the '88 election, Biden withdrew before a single vote was cast. Largely due to trumped up faux-scandals. In fact, some historians would argue that Biden's '88 downfall was the early work of the Bush political machine, as many viewed Biden as the strongest candidate in the Democratic field. Destroying him before he could truly run would be to Bush's advantage and, if nothing else, GOP elders likely played a role in promulgating the "scandals."

As to his 2008 run, it was never a real run. Biden never intended to win. That race was always between Clinton and Obama with Edwards as a dark horse prior to his scandal. What Biden was doing in 2008 was a running for Vice-President or SecState. He threw his name in the primary to get name recognition so as to make himself an attractive choice for Clinton or Obama (whomever the eventual nominee turned out to be).

My point is, the American people have never truly been faced with a decision regarding a Biden presidency, making your assertion all the more absurd.

what the hell are you talking about the american people have never truly been faced with a decision regarding a Biden presidency... dude threw his hat in the ring TWICE...thats all you have to do. the fact that bush or the "GOP elders" sank his candidacy with scandals is called POLITICS..thats how the game is played and either you can weather the storm like clinton did with his cheating scandals in 92..like trump did with his scandals and even obama with his issues (rev wright) either the american people by and large choose to look past those issues as they did with clinton, obama and trump or they don't like they did with biden and hillary and mccain and romney.

As far as gore was concerned he knew the BEST shot he had was coming out of a popular successful two term presidency with clinton and he STILL lost...if he can't win with that then what the hell was he gonna bring to table in 2004 and 2008? The ONLY vice president to run for president and win in the last 40 years was Bush 1 and he only got 1 term out of the deal.

The reality tv show host isn't an example of a convention its an ASSUMPTION. There is the difference I'm showing you a history of voting patterns and general perception of the likelihood of a candidates chances based on that history and your talking about shouldhave, couldhave, wouldhave based on IF this had happened and IF that had happened..

 

[hippie_hunter]

lets not have revisionist history..joe biden ran for president twice before in 1987 and 2007. if he was going to do it he would have done it.

The Joe Biden of 2016 had more recognition and popularity than the Joe Biden of 1987 and 2007.

 

[SV Fan]

Because it's true, they don't. But Matt is right, Republicans can afford to ignore the black vote, Democrats cannot afford to ignore the white vote.

Thing is they don't(ignore the white vote). Obama's 2009 stimulus bill was basically 1 giant we are backing you and appreciate your support to the Mid West. it's sort of sad to think of how many people there who directly or indirectly benefited off that stimulus had no issue to vote Republican when they basically went out of their way to bash that bill. While one can argue Obama got properly rewarded in 2012, I think the Democrat party in general should have got more positive respond in other elections as the party who fights for the mid west

 

[hellified]

The Joe Biden of 2016 had more recognition and popularity than the Joe Biden of 1987 and 2007.

2017 biden could beat 97 and 08 biden handily...but thats relative to the times..the question is could 2017 biden beat trump? most likely not for all the reasons you guys stated about the dems and whites relationship..


At BEST biden could only represent a 3rd obama term and if those flyover state whites feel left out and disaffected after 8 years of obama there was nothing biden was gonna do to break from that..

 

[hippie_hunter]

Thing is they don't(ignore the white vote). Obama's 2009 stimulus bill was basically 1 giant we are backing you and appreciate your support to the Mid West. it's sort of sad to think of how many people there who directly or indirectly benefited off that stimulus had no issue to vote Republican when they basically went out of their way to bash that bill. While one can argue Obama got properly rewarded in 2012, I think the Democrat party in general should have got more positive respond in other elections as the party who fights for the mid west

Like I said, when it comes to policy you can argue that Democrats don't loathe white people. But when it comes to campaign strategy, Democrats completely ignored the Rust Belt turning Republican before their eyes.

 

[ouroboros]

Whites are fundamentally conservative on account of being the historically dominant majority. When your on the cusp of losing power, you're going to be conservative. Trump really tapped into that fear that whites are losing "their" America. You still hear Republicans talking about taking back their country.

Historically no serious scholar would dispute that America's white majority was overwhelmingly racist. People today like to think it was just the South with Jim Crow. Never mind racist federal laws like the Immigration Act of 1924, countless unspoken rules or the interment of the Japanese American.

America (read: America's white majority) has always been a fundamentally racist country.

Only since the 20th century has over racism become unfashionable, but it's legacy is still alive.

Liberals like to delude themselves in either regionalizing racism or thinking of it as an obsolete concept. In reality, it's alive and well. It got a vile demagogue like Trump elected. 53% of white women voted for President ***** Grabber.

The numbers don't lie.

I don't think Trump was elected purely because of syndromic racism in American culture, though I understand why it's simpler to think so.

I didn't think liberals put forth the idea that racism was dead. Just the opposite: conservatives like to put a few black or Hispanic faces in office and then keep on exploiting everyone, Caucasian and non-Caucasian, with their economic policies.

 

[ouroboros]

It says a lot about America that Obama is considered to be "black," when he's really half black and was largely raised by his quintessentially white Kansan grandparents (their ancestors literally landed on Plymouth rock).

I thought Obama self-identified as "black." At least that was the impression I got from reading his autobio book.