Minority voters vote for white presidential candidates ALL the time

[EffieBlack]

even when those white candidates run against minorities. Yet when we do decide that a minority candidate is the best choice and choose them, we are accused of basing our vote on race, not qualifications.

On the other hand, white voters consistently vote for white presidential candidates and rarely does a majority of white voters vote for the minority candidate, regardless their qualifications. Yet, not only are white voters rarely accused of voting based on race, whenever it's obvious they're doing exactly that, their race-based choice is treated as perfectly normal, expected and something to be catered to ("We'd better not run a minority since white voters won't feel comfortable voting for them." ).

So, I have little patience for the pushback I see against suggestions that the Dems should try to include a minority candidate on the 2020 ticket. It's long past time for white voters to be pushed and expected to do what minority voters have been doing - without demand or complaint - for decades. And if that's too much for those voters to handle, we need to direct our efforts towards a different group of voters

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Of course, goes without saying but I guess it doesnt.

Not to mention the best candidate we have or the country has happens to fill two minority slots.

That candidate ls like a cross of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and JFK.

[ecstatic]

2. True, but I think that's a moot point right now.

We all have our favorites, but whoever emerges from the primaries will be the nominee. There's really no need to go back and forth with trolls or anyone else about what gender /race / etc. the next nominee should be.

[EffieBlack]

3. As long as people are discussing potential candidates, my point is not moot

Especially if the candidates' race us being factored in to the discussion. In fact, it's essential to the conversation

[druidity33]

4. Curiosity compels me to ask...

did you have any one in particular in mind?



I like Harris, i guess Booker is ok... though I'd vote for either. I love Gillum but not sure he'd consider it.

[EffieBlack]

5. No

I don't have a favorite candidate at this point.

[Caliman73]

6. Absolutely Effie.

We get the label "identity politics" when we support people who look like us, understand our story, and work to promote equality. That is just identity politics. Meanwhile we have to reach out to "rural voters", "the working class", and "people in the midwest". If we want to win we have to get the "Soccer Moms" on board. Well what the hell are they if not "identities". The difference is that those "identities" are typically White identities so that is important while the rest of us are just ungrateful rabblerousers for speaking out our desires.

[EffieBlack]

13. You nailed it!

[rogue emissary]

7. If the party accepted the reverse. Democrats would never win.

Having stronger support with African American, Latino and Asian have been the difference in many elections. Where the candidate was a straight white male.

Look no further than Bill Clinton's first election. Those minority groups and the other like the LGBT+ are the back bone of our party.

Thanks for this post EffieBlack

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. K&R.

[mcar]

9. And women have voted for male presidential candidates

since we were given the right to vote. Yet I see here, once again, hue and cry when you, I, and many others note that we'd like to have a female and/or minority nominee.

Thank you, Effie, for bringing this up in such a logical manner.

[EffieBlack]

14. You're exactly right.

[JHan]

10. This. K&R

[Afromania]

11. Exactly

and not just who we vote for either.

[brush]

12. What gets me is the thread from yesterday with a allegedly well researched finding...

that white, male candidates get 5% more votes v a black candidate and 3% more support than a female candidate.

It blatantly put it out into the DU firmament that white, male candidates are, frankly, worth more than black or POC or women candidates.

We need to push back on such not-so-thinly-veiled bs that ranks and favors a demographic segment that votes 70% repug. It's a re-echoing of a certain senator's chase for working-class white votes.

[johnp3907]

15. But some Democrats just don't see color or gender!

[violetpastille]

17. With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-see-race

[LiberalFighter]

16. It needs to be strongly stressed that the most qualified candidate that can be elected should

receive the nomination. And when we have the nomination keep pushing that meme. Race or gender should not make a difference. And it is also critical in the selection for VP. Now more than ever that can be a deciding factor if it is balanced.

I would go so far as to remind the voters that the last candidate on the Republican side was not fit to serve as President.

[EffieBlack]

18. What constitutes "qualified"?

Are qualifications an objective standard solely based on previous jobs? Or are other factors related to a candidate's background , values
and perspective valid considerations?

Is a candidate's socio-economic status relevant? Can we talk about whether they are working class or part of the 1%? Does the part of the country or what city, town or state they grew up in matter (e.g., "Scranton Joe&quot ?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then why can't someone's race or gender - things that can shape or at least substantially influence who that person is - also be factored in under "qualifications."

If you think those things are relevant but race and gender aren't, can you explain the distinction?

[Solly Mack]

19. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Hear! Hear! Kick, Rec and BRAVA!

[question everything]

21. A different view

In 2008 many, here and in the country, supported Obama because he was black. This was enough.

But many women bent backward to declare that even though they were women (still are, I suppose) they were not supporting Hillary.

Yes, this bothered me.

Why can't voters support a candidate for what s/he stands for? Track record, if such exists?

And... "a majority of white voters" did vote for the "minority candidate" in 2008. Didn't we?

So what is your point?

From my point, I will vote for Cory Booker in a heart beat. If he runs. But not for Kamala Harris.

[EffieBlack]

30. No, a majority of white voters did not vote for Obama

He got 43% of the white vote in 2008, 39% in 2012.

How do you define “track record”? What was Obama’s track record that led you to support him in 2008? And were those things in his “track record” the only factors up considered when voting for him?

As for “what’s my point” ... it’s very clear because I said it outright in my post.

[question everything]

34. The truth is - I voted for him because I would always vote for the Democratic candidate

I supported Hillary until she dropped.

2012, of course, was a different story. He was our president and he got my vote.

I admit, I did not realize that only 43% of the white vote went for him. Are you talking Democrats only, or everyone?

[EffieBlack]

36. That's everyone

What was it about Hillary's track record that left you to support her in the primaries?

[question everything]

38. She has been active progressively her whole life, even before marrying Bill.

She was traveling the world as First Lady, she was knowledgeable about every topic - as we've seen in 2016.

I know that many women held it against her for staying with philandering Bill, but, really, each marriage is different and one can never know what special ties there are.

No, she is not an angel. Frankly, every person who chooses to run for office is ambitious and can be cut throat, even Obama. We know this and do not hold that against them.

And, like many women in, say corporate world, she had to work harder, she had to be likeable. I remember one of the last debates, with Richardson and, I think, Edwards. They were sitting, relaxes, the men schmoozing and she, serious, is prepared.

And especially these days: when she entered the Senate she was a "celebrity" but she did not capitalize on this. She sat in the back benches, studied the issues, worked with other senators. Her peers, even Republicans, really admired her.

But, at the end, voters want a visceral connection to a candidate. Bill Clinton had it, Obama had it and, as much as I hate to put him in the same sentence, Trump had it.

Our candidates have been more cerebral: Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary. They are smart, they can talk in complete paragraphs but they do not create that visceral connection.

And, I am sorry that I did not know that Obama did not get the majority of the white vote, I'd hope that he at least got the Democratic majority.

[IronLionZion]

22. Republicans think this way

they can't separate a person from their race. So they have often found the most RW minority they can find and nominate them for Supreme Court or some other political position. And when Dems oppose them on policy, they claim Dems are the racist party of the KKK and segregation and want to keep minorities down.

[potone]

23. Of course you are right.

I also think it is way too soon to be deciding on candidates. We’ve got a nightmare to deal with right now on all fronts.

[LovingA2andMI]

24. K/R'ed

Up WAY High.

[WhiteTara]

25. I'm really like Kamala Harris; but I wish

that Stacy Abrams was more visible because she is incredible and needs much more exposure.

[Wounded Bear]

28. That's why the Repubs couldn't allow her to win...

Being governor of a major Southern state would put her firmly in the national spotlight.

[WhiteTara]

33. Of course, she is very powerful.

[EffieBlack]

37. I was struck on Election Night

When Stacey gave an eloquent, well-thought-out, prepared but very passionate speech. She looked and sounded polished and totally ready for prime time. But her speech got very little attention. Instead, folks raved about Beto's off-the-cuff remarks, that included him roaming around the stage in rumpled clothing anf blurting out the f-word.

I couldn't help but think what the reaction would have been if the roles were reversed and it was the black woman who wandered about the stage in a wrinkled outfit that night, riffing with no prepared remarks, and cursing at her audience on. national television. I doubt very many people would have praised her as "authentic" or "refreshing," much less touted her as presidential material. I think all know exactly what people would have said about her - and it wouldn't have been nice.

We still have a long long way to go to level the political playing field for women and minorities, even among Democrats.

[Wounded Bear]

26. It is a bit of a double edged sword, isn't...

Now, my Governor is a white male, and I think he would make a great president. I'd be happy to support him if he runs. But whoever gets through the primaries with the most delegates will get my vote in the general, regardless. The Dems would have to run a crap candidate of Trumpian shittiness for me not to support her/him. I haven't seen a single person in the Dem party electo-sphere that bad.

The runup to the election is a winnowing process, and candidates get selected on a variety of reasons, including such facts as race and gender, sad as that is. As a white male in my 60's, I grew up in an era that implanted in me a kind of tacit racism largely based on nothing, actually. Where I grew up, there were no black families. There were several brands of East Asians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans. Telling of ethnic jokes was common, and peer pressure dictated that we had to laugh at all the Polack jokes, etc. I have spent a lifetime getting over that. I still find myself, in situations of stress like near misses in traffic or being cut off in the grocery line, or made to wait for someone sauntering across a driveway while I'm forced to wait, suppressing that inner desire to blurt out something entirely inapporpriate. I do it because it's the right thing to do. The things I learned growing up are still in there.

We have numerous candidates, or persons thinking about running, of various ages, races and sexes. I look forward to a healthy debate about issues like how we handle health care, and the bloated military budgets, and the basic inequalities of income and wealth in our nation, and race relations, and gun control. May the best candidate win, and I won't stay home because the "wrong" one is on the ticket.

[Basement Beat]

29. A-fuckin'-men.

You stated this way more eloquently than I could have.
White voters often get a pass with everything regarding elections. Hell, just check out the forums here during midterms in areas where Dems lost. "Black and Hispanic voters didn't come out in numbers. If they did...we could have won." Meanwhile totally ignoring the fact that a majority of white voters...still voted for the likely crackpot racist republican candidate.

[betsuni]

31. K&R

[people]

32. Voting for white presidential candidates

I think the things you say are absolutely true, very true, and need to be said. Thank you! Personally, I do not want to vote for an all white male president and vice-president ticket. Would I vote for OK democrats who were both white males, of course, but I think it's time for the rest of us to be represented, more or less consistently.

I am tired about all the concern about "[white] working class" voters. Yes, there's no doubt that the level of income inequality in this country is obscene and immoral. Most people in this country work -- not just white people-- and so when people talk about reaching out to the "working class" -as if only white men or only white men and women are working class, it makes me sick. If democrats run on economic policies that obviously will benefit working people far more than Republican tax cuts, and certain white "working class" people still choose to vote for Republicans, I can only conclude that they are voting republican because they are racist, sexist, anti LGBT and/or anti-immigrant. Our time would be far better spent reaching out to people who will vote for democrats, almost for sure, if they vote. I definitely want a vice-president, president ticket that includes at least one non-white and one woman (and, yes, just like the "working class," women come in all races).

[EffieBlack]

35. Awesome post!

Thanks,!

[PunkinPi]

39. K&R

[sellitman]

40. This pasty old white guy

Cried years of joy when Obama won. Twice.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I'd love Kamala Harris on the next ticket too although it's early.

[Bucky]

41. Several factual misstatements in the OP

I think we accuse white voters of voting based on race all the time. It's just that we say Republican voters instead of white voters, because it's a useful distinction.

White Democrats haven't voted for a white male presidential nominee in 14 years. Yet I've never heard a white Democrat (or really any Democrat) complain about that.

Race matters when you're talking about police violence, job opportunities, housing market redlining, equal educational access, and all the issues that matter in how our government & society fulfill the American dream.

But race doesn't really matter. Two of the three candidates I'm seriously considering are not white. I think you'll find that fairly typical for our party.

[EffieBlack]

42. What exactly in my OP were "factual misstatements"

And, please be specific.

The rest of your post is non-responsive to my OP - but a few points:

You stated that "White Democrats haven't voted for a white male presidential nominee in 14 years. Yet I've never heard a white Democrat (or really any Democrat) complain about that." That's irrelevant since I wasn't discussing white MALE candidates or white Democratic voters. My post was about WHITE voters voting for WHITE presidential candidates. And, as you surely know, given how you skirted the point, an overwhelming majority of white voters voted for a presidential candidate in the last the last 14 years. And, in fact, a significant number of WHITE DEMOCRATIC voters voted for a WHITE CANDIDATE during that time.

My point stands.

[WeekiWater]

43. I do use race and gender as metrics when considering my vote.

It is not simply a given that I will vote for a person of color or a woman over a white male but they are given greater weight in my decision process.

1) Neither have proportional representation.

2) Systemic oppression makes it even more difficult when we are often dealing with a name recognition game. This is too far overlooked. It's a huge impediment in electoral politics.

3) They will garner opposition for truly heinous reasons.

Many of those alluded to in number three are doubling down and scared. While it is clear that most of them are on the right, it's simply dishonest to not recognize that isn't the only place such hatred resides. On the right, their hatred has become even more public and entrenched. On the left, it's more evident and seen as people clearly see certain faces and feel more comfortable. Overwhelmingly, those on the left with these issues will still vote for a minority or a woman if that is who is on the ticket.

I am of the belief that 2012 shook their racist little world-view. Over seventy percent of voters in that Presidential election were white. The white vote broke for Romney by twenty points. Obama pulled five million more votes and won fifty-one to forty-seven.

[EffieBlack]

44. Very interesting take. Thanks!

[WeekiWater]

45. Thank you for hosting such a conversation.

It's often not easy and many hedge on what they will say. A lot of that is understandable because the topic itself can be painful when it comes to true self reflection. Many of us are adverse to doing self reflection when talking about these issues.

I've found that being open with my thoughts at places like this is invaluable and helps me to grow. I don't mind being open, taking the risk of being righteously smacked down, as that is a part of the learning experience. I've lived a very entitled life. Inherent racism comes along with that no matter how mindful I try to be. Much of it is only countered through education, which often isn't very pretty in conversation, yet must occur for personal and societal betterment. Some will read those thought and think they are self-deprecation. I simply know how I was raised and fully understand I'm flawed and some of that is inherent. I like to think I have many beautiful qualities as well.

[lostnfound]

46. Can we get Obama back? Like, for life? Nt

[dem in texas]

47. Let this old white lady get in her two cents worth

I was thrilled to see a woman run for president when Hillary ran against Obama in the primaries. But I did not vote for her. The reason: when she was senator, she voted to go to war against Iraq.

I did vote for her this last election, even though I don't think she ran an aggressive enough campaign against Trump.

2020 should be interesting, two strong black women. Stacey and Kamala, the Castro twin, Beto. - need a crystal ball.

[LakeSuperiorView]

48. "for the pushback I see against suggestions that the Dems should try to include a minority candidat"

"when we do decide that a minority candidate is the best choice"

There is a difference. We should always choose the best candidate, whoever it may be.

Choosing a candidate for the sole reason that they belong to a minority group skips past their qualifications. I'm fine with including anyone, but when people suggest who the candidate should be because she is a woman, or Muslim, or has skin that has more melanin - that ignores their ability to do the job.

For the record, I voted for Obama, for Hillary, for my Reps. Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar.


Pitch me based on who they are, not what they are.

[EffieBlack]

50. I'm not aware of anyone who selects a candidate SOLELY because they are a minority

But there's nothing wrong with that being one of the many factors considered.

We look at all kinds of factors that really have nothing to do with "qualifications" but that we think help contribute to who they are as people and leaders - e.g., their age, where they're from, their socio-economic status. But for some reason, when someone puts their race into the mix, some folk suddenly want to go all colorblind and "objective criteria only" on us.

I served on an admissions committee and was both disgusted and amused when my colleagues considered all kinds of factors having nothing to do with academics in order to make sure we had a "diverse" student body - where an applicant was from, who their parents were, whether they had a musical talent, etc. - but the minute anyone tried to ensure racial diversity, they screamed "reverse discrimination!" and "we should only be looking at their test scores and grades!!!"

And that's just what I see happening here. The problem is not that people are concerned about candidates being considered based on factors outside of "qualifications" nor that they think that "qualifications" are limited to a narrow band of objective criteria. The problem for many people - even those who are perfectly willing to consider all kinds of subjective criteria (including certain demographic factors that are really euphemisms for "white&quot - is that they resent or are simply uncomfortable with minority candidates having their race be considered as an attribute.

[LakeSuperiorView]

51. "having their race be considered as an attribute"

Personally, I don't see that as being any different than saying that because they are male, or white, or old, thay makes them a better candidate. EVERYONE is young or old, male or female, light or dark skinned. Where one falls on a range that everyone absolutely possesses, which conveys no inherent advantage to the task at hand, is meaningless in determining qualifications for that task.

You have laid out your biases and your opinion is just as valid as mine. I think that the posts that say the 2020 candidate has to be this or that are ridiculous - at the end of the primary, everyone who chooses to will have had their chance and the majority of us will choose the candidate, regardless of what individuals howl what the candidate be.

[EffieBlack]

52. How is saying someone is a woman any different than saying they are working class or from Scranton?

Or that they are part of the 1 percent? All of these are non-objective factors that help to make people who they are.

The idea that we consider all kinds of subjective criteria to help us determine whether we will support or not support someone but race or gender are completely off limits is, in my view, disingenuous and hypocritical.

I also strongly believe that anyone who claims that they don't "see" someone's race or gender are either lying or lack self-awareness. It also suggests that they not see the whole person.

Being an African-American woman has been one of the defining aspects of my life. It's affected how I am treated, how I am viewed and how I have had to navigate the world. So, when someone tells me that they don't see my race and gender - when, I know good and well that they do since that's my most obvious physical characteristic - I think they're either full of sh!t or completely clueless about their environment.

[LakeSuperiorView]

53. I see that you are an African-American woman because you have said so.

What I don't see is how that could make you any more or less qualified for public office.

You can repeat your desire to consider what a person is to be a positive attribute, it will not change my mind that who a person is is far more important in terms of qualification for public office. You can try to belittle my opinion by calling it "not seeing", it will not change it.

"I also strongly believe that anyone who claims that they don't "see" someone's race or gender are either lying or lack self-awareness."

Be careful of absolute statements, they seldom are entirely true.

Edit to note that I don't mean to try to change your opinion, just to express mine.

[EffieBlack]

54. How does being from Scranton or being young or not being wealthy

make one any more or less qualified for public office?

What specifically do you think are the only qualities we should consider in determining whether someone is qualified for public office?

[LakeSuperiorView]

55. I don't think I have said a person's origin, age or income bracket can make them qualified or not.

I believe that would be you making that argument, I have said quite the opposite in fact.

You keep talking in absolutes, which is generally a conservative trait - the with us or against us, positive/negative, black/white, good/evil, etc. Almost everything about humans is a range, rather than polar opposites. Indeed, we are starting to recognize that seemingly opposites such as gender, have a range between them.

What a person has done, what a person says is more important to me than what they look like, where they grew up. These are not, as you put it, the "only qualities" I would consider, but the qualities you keep promoting as advantages are not qualifications in my opinion. You, as always are free to think that way. I do not.

[oldlibdem]

49. I vote a straight Democratic ticket, ALWAYS!

Doesn't matter what race, sex, creed, national origin, or whatever.