Democrats need white voters
For the past two decades, the liberal media have told Republicans that they must repent their ways or risk losing the black vote and the Hispanic vote forever. There is ominous talk of white people no longer being a majority -- someday.
But if that were true -- if race is destiny -- why are Democrats in their worst shape since 1928?
The truth is Democrats have the race problem.
There is only one white Democratic congressman from the 11 Confederate states.
In part, this is the unintended consequence of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which mandated the creation of black congressional districts. Black voters now account for roughly one in every four Democratic votes. Roping them off in districts that are up to 90 percent black puts Democrats in a tougher position to win non-black districts.
But Democrats are so busy courting black and Hispanic votes that they fail to see the big picture.
Ignoring (and even mocking) the problems of white Americans comes with a price. Writing off Appalachia and the South gives Republicans a firewall of 13 states and also jeopardizes Democratic chances in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for any Democratic presidential nominee.
The racial arithmetic works this way: White people account for roughly three-quarters of the vote. Even if Democrats get 90 percent of the non-white vote, they need 36.7 percent of the white vote in order to win by 0.03 percent.
Right now, Hillary is at 33.7 percent among white voters, according to the Los Angeles Times poll on Monday.
Trump has a 24-point advantage over her among whites. Romney had a 20-point advantage.
The news gets worse for Democrats because she is losing their non-white advantage.
She has an 82-point advantage among black voters. Obama had an 87-point advantage.
She has a 24-point advantage among Hispanic voters. Obama had a 44-point advantage.
The bottom line is Trump is ahead by 3.4 four years after Obama won by 3.9 points.
That is a 7.3-point swing in just four years.
White votes matter, as Democrats could very well learn in the next seven days.
But if that were true -- if race is destiny -- why are Democrats in their worst shape since 1928?
The truth is Democrats have the race problem.
There is only one white Democratic congressman from the 11 Confederate states.
In part, this is the unintended consequence of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which mandated the creation of black congressional districts. Black voters now account for roughly one in every four Democratic votes. Roping them off in districts that are up to 90 percent black puts Democrats in a tougher position to win non-black districts.
But Democrats are so busy courting black and Hispanic votes that they fail to see the big picture.
Ignoring (and even mocking) the problems of white Americans comes with a price. Writing off Appalachia and the South gives Republicans a firewall of 13 states and also jeopardizes Democratic chances in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for any Democratic presidential nominee.
The racial arithmetic works this way: White people account for roughly three-quarters of the vote. Even if Democrats get 90 percent of the non-white vote, they need 36.7 percent of the white vote in order to win by 0.03 percent.
Right now, Hillary is at 33.7 percent among white voters, according to the Los Angeles Times poll on Monday.
Trump has a 24-point advantage over her among whites. Romney had a 20-point advantage.
The news gets worse for Democrats because she is losing their non-white advantage.
She has an 82-point advantage among black voters. Obama had an 87-point advantage.
She has a 24-point advantage among Hispanic voters. Obama had a 44-point advantage.
The bottom line is Trump is ahead by 3.4 four years after Obama won by 3.9 points.
That is a 7.3-point swing in just four years.
White votes matter, as Democrats could very well learn in the next seven days.
14 comments:
Historically it seems unwise to piss off white men. I have seen evidence of a resurgence of pride in this country and its history, at least in my limited travels.
The story went, if '12 was an honest count (YMMV), Romney lost not because of the wetbacks, but because of white guys.
Surber's been a superstar the whole year. He ought to get a Pulitzer, but will probavbly have to settle for our undying gratitude.
PS To amplify on Sixty's thesis, white guys seem to be driving the current crusade - FBI mutiny (it now includes an investigation of the Marc Rich pardon (can you say Willie and Holder?)), immigration, crime, and WikiLeaks - which says they now have a smoking gun on Frumpty's intent to delete her emails.
test
Do any of you have trouble posting a comment here?
I've been getting -
Bad Request
Error 400
- when I try to post.
But test went right through. Let's see if this goes through. Does a computer literate gal or guy know what Bad Request indicates?
Oh well, now it's working again. I'm in the hands of the fickle computer god.
ricpic, I had the same problem around 6pm. When I tried to publish after previewing the comment, it went to the 404 error, but when I published without preview, it went through.
It's still happening, labeling the prompt a "Bad Request".
Had it once earlier (this afternoon), but I just went out and came back and it was OK.
It's a Blogger thing.
For those interested, the FBI has released the documents in their investigation of Frumpty's emails.
Looks like lots of juicy stuff.
Thanks MamaM and dutch. Good to know I'm not alone.
It's a prediction based on anecdotal observation from early voting activity, but Hillary will take Florida
If the polls are right (remember early voting started before the world shook), Trump should win there.
Early voting, according to Breitbart, looks good. Trump's ahead of where Romney was.
We'll see.
Wishful thinking impairs one's reading of the tea leaves regarding elections. I don't think the odds favor Trump, but perhaps Brexit wasn't a one off.....It is distressing to note that white working class men can now be considered marginal in Presidential elections. Don't throw the people who pull the oars overboard. That's the first rule seamanship, but maybe the Dems can fill the sails with enough hot air to keep the ship from listing in heavy seas and extended metaphors.
History Channel is running a series on white supremacy movement in the United States showing again their raison d'etre is not history at all. For that you must go online elsewhere.
Just what we need, somebody's college journalism research project substituted for history, another lecture on how self-interested white people need to just shut up and take their place at the back of the line, forget about how their culture is not just superior but so superior that it attracts victims of lesser cultures in overwhelming numbers, just stfu or be arrested for being so presumptuous, and with no mention whatsoever about what precisely could motivate such outrage. That is where journalism substituting for history stops.
Like I need to pay to receive this bait and switch.
Yesterday I cancelled my cable.
It wasn't so hard as they say. Sure, there was the programmed spiel that begins. "It looks like you're making a big change ..."
Actually there were two of those. The first one hung up after waiting on hold and after telling her I'd go online to get my account number. The laptop was open I had only to go to the site, but the thing disconnected. So I started over and the second representative began with the exact same sequence of words.
Animal Planet was telling me about haunted houses
History Channel was telling me how to kill zombies.
The cost increases $30.00 a pop (Their terminology is cost "fluctuation") Whoever heard of fluctuation that goes up, up, up, up, up, with no downward movement? Except for the downward quality in quality. From history to SJW tautology. From animals to animal-less spooky houses. FOX that goes liberal right before our eyes. Cartoons that are actually films. News stations that are liberal propaganda 24 hours a day. Finance shows that are actually more liberal politics. Sports that are affected with liberal political agitation and all the discussion that follows.
Comcast: "Well, we're not responsible for content."
____ "No, but you deliver it. And you price it. And you abuse your subscribers. Your company takes them for dopes."
And the whole thing was cathartic, and our conversation disappointingly short. Not at all what I read about online. They didn't hassle me one single bit. In fact, they understood completely. They helped me make sure I get the connection I'll need for streaming. I found them very professional. We'll see how this goes.
I contacted several other internet providers and not a single one of them returned my request for more information. It appears Comcast really is the best internet service provider in these parts.
But I'm keeping my options open.
Right now I'm looking for the best modem/router for my situation. The information out there is seriously conflicted and confused. Again, we'll see.
I think I'll do this in spits and spurts,
Surges and halts.
Rushes and pauses.
Fits and starts.
You know, instead of all at once.
Cutting the cord was the best thing we ever did.
500 fucking channels and nothing worth watching.
There was more worthwhile programming when there were 70 channels - 20 years ago.
Meanwhile the cost goes up and up and up. Despite the fact that their programming costs aren't tied to inflation.
Comcast may be better in Colorado. In my neck of the woods, they're a quasi-monoloply that behaves like greedy assholes. They remind of the old laugh-in joke "We're the phone company. We don't care. We don't have to."
Post a Comment