Democrats' hunt for the white working-class male voter

[YoungDemCA]

Democrats were once the party of the white working man — but that was a long time ago.

In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama won only one-third of the votes of white working-class men, a modern-day low. Mitt Romney, who didn't seem much like a blue-collar guy, swept the votes of those working stiffs by a huge margin.

In the 2014 congressional election, Democratic candidates did even worse, one of the main reasons they lost nine Senate seats and their Senate majority.

That imbalance has tormented Democratic activists, who still see themselves as champions of the working class, the party's core identity for most of the last century.

snip:

The groups that are growing — women, minorities, young people — tend to vote Democratic. The party's next nominee could still win the White House based mostly on their turnout; that's how Obama won his second term.

But abandoning the hunt for white working-class men would make Democratic candidates vulnerable to any Republican candidate who could win a healthy share of minority voters, as George W. Bush did in 2000 and 2004. Equally important, because of the concentration of minority voters in urban districts, it would doom the Democrats to second place in congressional elections.

Almost by definition, identity politics is one source of the problem; some white noncollege voters have come to view Democrats as a party that cares about women and minorities more than it cares about them.

The biggest driver of white working-class disaffection, however, is clearly economic insecurity, combined with a sense that big government hasn't done much to stand up for the little guy.

Poll after poll has shown that workers without college educations are more pessimistic than anyone else about the economic future. That's only logical, since their job prospects have been worsening for decades.

But there's a striking racial disconnect: White people are more pessimistic than minorities. When the Pew Research Center asked in 2012 whether they expected their children to enjoy a better standard of living, 56% of black and Latino respondents said yes, but only 41% of whites were optimistic.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0419-mcmanus-whites-20150419-column.html

Personally, I have a major problem with the connotation of "working-class" as being "white men without college degrees." That may be a traditional connotation of the working-class, but are not minorities, immigrants, and women a huge part of the American working class today?

Additionally, there are still plenty of more affluent or higher-income white men who do not have college degrees. Somehow, I doubt that they're a liberal crowd.

I reject this framing of the Democratic Party as having "abandoned" the "working-class." I think it's more that a particular segment of the American working class (traditionally, but much less so today, the dominant one - in social, economic, cultural, and political terms) has largely abandoned the Democratic Party. Draw your own conclusions.

That's just my view, though. I'm sure others will disagree.

[seabeyond]

1. as long as whit emen continue to define their masculinity thru their vote, there will be an issue

regardless of them obviously voting against their own self interests.

[guillaumeb]

5. But white males do NOT see a vote for the GOP as against their self-interest.

Call it ignorance of history, residual racism, or a combination of both, but I feel that many working class, NON-UNION white males vote for the GOP because, from Nixon through Reagan, the GOP has blamed minorities for the fact that white males are not doing well economically.

I highlighted NON-UNION because unionized workers vote for the Democrats at far higher rates than non-unionized workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/labor-unions-deliver-for-obama_n_2089430.html

Unless or until the Democrats can break through this fog of ignorance and racism, the GOP will continue to benefit from this misdirected hostility and anger.

[CTyankee]

138. The GOP knew they had to break the unions and they did it with a lot of racism and

bile directed at the college educated middle to upper middle class and calling them "elite." It worked. But now the pendulum is swinging the other way. More and more the 99% are feeling united and pushing back. Eventually, we will win this one.

[hifiguy]

142. You are so right.

Nixon began it and Raygun perfected this spiel.

[YoungDemCA]

6. So many don't think of themselves as ever having been privileged by their gender or race

They think that they alone-as individual white men-worked for everything they have, and that they EARNED what they have, and that everyone else should do the same. Because it would be unfair to give someone else a "handout" or a "leg up."

They operate from the assumption that what concerns them= what concerns America, or ought to. When they see the country changing, growing more diverse, women and minorities starting to receive equal rights and expanded opportunities...that scares a lot of them.

They see their own economic situation deteriorate, and blame liberals/Democrats-and by extension, women, minorities, the poor, those on govt. assistance -for their problems. Because they know that they work hard (which I would never deny), and they think they know that hard work pays off, so when it doesn't, they frantically look for a scapegoat - which the right-wingers, the Republicans point out to them.

[Rex]

14. And as long as they continue to stay myopic about the world around them.

And if ONLY they would stop being proud of being ignorant (because ultimately, the rest of the world does not matter) and stupid and dangerous to the rest of society!

It is ingrained in some men imo, like this really pathetic song;

"I'm just a singer of simple songs
I'm not a real political man
I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell
you the difference in Iraq and Iran
But I know Jesus and I talk to God
And I remember this from when I was young
Faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us
And the greatest is love"

WELL maybe LEARN the fucking difference or I guess being ignorant is being proud of the USA! Of course he brays on and on about love...all the while wanting to go kick Iraqi butt (Iran, Iraq...he really doesn't give two shits.)

Some men will never be able to give up the machismo, society brainwashed them early into thinking it is better to be dead than to be humble.

[Ikonoklast]

67. Me voting Democratic has been against my economic self-interest.

There has been a massive increase in regulation in my industry under the current administration.

The FMCSA is giving trial lawyers ( one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party and Obama campaign) a huge payoff which will end up costing me thousands of dollars every year, if not tens of thousands of dollars through proposed rulemaking. The numbers are based on nothing more than what the lawyers lobbying group told the agency they wanted in the new rule.

The only people fighting to keep that regulatory agency from running amok currently are the Republicans in Congress, with the help of only a few Democrats.

They have used legislation to get some of the most onerous of the recent rules rescinded, and are trying to hold a regulatory agency that was doing the bidding of the largest industry lobbying group to listen to all stakeholders in the industry instead of the largest campaign contributors.

The Democrats appointed by Obama to the DOT and the FMCSA were in bed with billion-dollar corporations, and refused to listen to any other voices. The Republicans are forcing them to listen by threatening the agency with legislative action seeking relief for small business owners...like me.

I don't view my economic self-interest through the eyes of my 'masculinity'. The Democrats are losing the White male vote because they are indifferent to the plight of millions of voters who have been hurt by their policies.

Some days it is really difficult to defend an administration which has hurt me and many tens of thousands just like me economically due to political paybacks.

[CANDO]

104. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

So people know what that is. Are you an Owner Operator? What is costing you thousands per year? I'm a driver. 26 yrs. All of it as company driver, 21 for a unionized freight carrier. What is it that you see (regulatory $) that I don't because of the OO vs company driver difference?

[Ikonoklast]

143. Massive increase in insurance mandatory minimums.

Right now I pay $11,420 a year for comprehensive, cargo, and a million in liability. The trial lawyers want that number tripled.

Less than .09% of all payouts in insurance claims exceed the million-dollar threshold, yet trial lawyers know that if the minimum is set at three million, that is the number they will sue for.


My insurance premium would go to close on three thousand dollars a *month*...if there was anyone left in the commercial policy underwriting business left willing to write a policy.

Many underwriters said they would not be able to write a three million dollar policy at any cost and abandon the commercial market, the exposure to a catastrophic payout wasn't worth the risk.

I would be out of business inside of six months.

And your employer would also be affected by the new minimums, unless self-insured.

The trucking companies that are self-insured love this proposal, they can sit back and watch as the force of governmental regulation runs the competition out of business for them. At the same time the new minimums will have little impact on their overall insurance costs, as all they do is post a bond.

Either make them pay a premium like all other trucking companies or let me also post a bond.

Level the playing field, stop doing the bidding of billion-dollar corporations while killing off the little guy.

But so far this administration seems to only hear what the big money contributors say, even though the majority of freight in this nation is moved by small-business trucking companies.

[CANDO]

156. Thank you for the detailed reply

Also wondering if you're a single truck operation or you own multiple trucks. Obviously you would know more about those issues(insurances) vs a company driver. I'm wondering what you'd do if your liability insurance couldn't cover a suit seeking far more than your coverage? Not minimizing your explanation, but at some point a small business may find themselves under insured vs excessive insurance.

[whatthehey]

78. while I'm generally not much of a believer in gender politics, this is most of the problem

I am a white male of working class upbringing and habits, despite my decidedly middle class financial position. My hobbies mean I spend a great deal of time in the great bastion of white working/lower middle male social interaction, aka bars. I've been in bars as a regular and a stranger in 46 states from the bluest to the reddest, from dives to mid price "family" chains like BWW. Hundreds of them (no I'm not a peripatetic lush; while I do drink, it's not booze I go for)

They are all, without a single exception anywhere, universally filled with talk that is either a)sports or b)right wing politics of the vilest sort, fueled by misplaced testosterone and xenophobia. I've been warned for "causing trouble" just for calmly stating facts in the face of a spittle-filled rant from someone else about immigrants or liberal commie traitors. I'm warned, not the rager. He's supported, not me. Because he's stating the general opinion of the bar's regular patrons, not me.

And let's not pretend that this is about a) political advocacy b) Obama-driven white rage or c) DLC DINO 3rd way whatever claptrap.

Why?

a) They know shit. In the dozens of cases where I have been in the mood to engage such people,one, just one has even known for whom he voted in the House. None has been able to discuss politics in any detail beyond current headlines. They haven't been persuaded that the Reps are better or even that the Dems are worse rationally, any more than they have been convinced that Harley Davidsons are the best motorcycles rationally (obviously...) It's the same kind of emotional gut appeal, halo effect and imagery. We won't change that with facts. They are not voting against their interests, they do not care about their interests, or even in a political sense, know their interests.

b) Sure they are racist and xenophobic, but other than a handy target I hear no more racism now than I did when Kerry or Gore or Clinton was the Dem leader. They simply hate anyone who is not like them. Obama definitely raised some racist wave among the chattering classes, but the bar crowd would hate him no less if he looked like Brad Pitt.

c) They don't know and don't care. Warren could get them? Bernie could get them? Arrant nonsense. The mass of this cohort doesn't know what DLC stands for, thinks third way is some kind of bisexual thing and TPP is somebody stuttering about toilet tissue. It is utterly, entirely irrelevant to the great mass of white ill-informed males what the differences are between ANY Democrats.

The problem is that they ARE Democrats, and that has been drilled into their minds = weak, effeminate, unamerican, louche and limp-wristed, not real American manly and straightforward and normal. They vote testosterone, the flag and parochialism That's what they vote against, and for, with that level of introspection and rationality. Remember they don't even remember the name of the Congressman they are threatening me for voting against. You think you'll get them by talking about GINI coefficients and CU rulings?

[JustAnotherGen]

82. This should be its own thread / op

So how do we get them? How the hell do we get them to see they have more in common with a middle class hispanic man than they do the Koch Brothers? That the things they want in life are the same?

[whatthehey]

95. Wish I knew. I'm no marketing guru. But we know what doesn't work

Harking on about the needy and the "little guy" won't work because they don't see themselves that way, but as tough resourceful people who stand on their own two feet (even the ones on benefits). If they aren't earning a lot it's because the Mexicans are undercutting their wages or the liberals are taxing them too much. To need help is to be weak. To accept that you are the little guy is to be proud of being weak. The brotherhood of the downtrodden is a nonstarter here. This is why I think pols of all stripes focus rhetoric on the middle class, because your average $9/hr white guy is too proud to think of himself as less than middle in any way.

The very last thing that will work with this crowd is to stress that Dems champion minorities, or women, or gays. We should actually do that of course, but to advertise that to the lower echelon white male demographic that hates, belittles and shrinks from association with those groups, in that order, is to turn them away from you. Who would want to support a party that supports those you have been told, and thought, are beneath you your whole life? What insults do white men trade the most with each other? Ones that indicate they are either female or gay. What group do they see as the embodiment of all that is antithetical to the rugged self-made straight arrow they see themselves as? The pop-culture stereotype of shiftless, welfare-dependent, criminal blacks who in their mind are the only type of black people who exist. Christ help you if you support non-Christians too, but the Dems by and large haven't yet been brave/suicidal enough to do much of that.

Image is honestly all they react to. To me it's like buying small foreign cars in the early 70s. It doesn't matter that they were more reliable, cheaper to buy and run, more practical. They weren't big and tough and macho and real 'Murican. John Wayne wouldn't drive a Honda, and he wouldn't vote Democratic. The only way I see to beat that is to focus on changing a few key images mostly with emotional loading but maybe with very very simple facts repeated over and over again, for years. You don't go from "Democrats aren't wussies" to "let's talk about the conflict arbitration ramifications of the TPP" very quickly. I'd start on hammering D vs R job growth data in very very very simple snapshots, with emotional tie ins always included, and maybe one other attribute - terrorism prosecutions or captures or something intensely "macho", and little else for months on end until it becomes an embedded image, then move on to others. And if, which is of course a questionable if, we want the white working class male vote to trend Dem again we absolutely must abandon any meaningful gun regulation support.

The typical argument against this is that people already support "liberal" ideas. We get bombarded with such data but few of the advocates that the US is really liberal even including white males either notice or admit a couple of key facts:

1) Surveys that show a majority supporting gay marriage or universal health care or whatever rarely show a majority of white lower echelon males doing so.
2) Those surveys NEVER include the follow up "and would you vote for the party most likely to advocate this in a national election assuming that's the Democrats?" because Bubba may very well be ok with the idea of the Fed paying for his doctor, he doesn't want the same for Shawnt'elle and her kids dsown the street. He may even be ok with Adam and Steve geting married (as long as they never hold hands in his sight) but not if it goes along with actual diplomacy towards the "towelheads" in Iran instead of bombing them like a real man would.

Frankly I'm even less a political strategist than a marketer, but personally I wouldn't chase the low information white male voter very hard, beyond a campaign as mentioned above top pick off a few of the more rational ones. They are too far gone and to get very many of them back would take imaging and even actions that would turn our backs on both principles and utilitarian benefit in too many areas. It would mean speaking out even less than Dems already do for equality and fairness and peace and progress, because in all honesty that's not what the bar crowd wants. Demographics will cover their numbers nationally, and given the chance a serious overhaul of education policies would over generations decrease the number of proud know-nothings still further. In the short term, politically the Dems should basically say "fuck the middle aged lower echelon white male vote", and I say that as a middle aged white male who came from the lower echelons.

[CTyankee]

144. we had a real character of what you describe as our mechanic a while back...

I was never able to have political conversations with the guy because he seemed so bent on exactly the areas you've mentioned. Yeah, he would say ALL politicians do it, but then go on a bit that revealed he was saying ("but Dems are worse".) I got kinda ticked off at him but then my husband said he really didn't think the guy even voted. I actually saw what he was saying and felt differently about that mechanic from then on. I actually thought he was pathetic...

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Huey Long knew.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Huey_Long

Mr. President, I am not undertaking to answer the charge that I am ignorant. It is true. I am an ignorant man. I have had no college education. I have not even had a high school education. But the things that takes me far in politics is that I do not have to color what comes into my mind and into my heart. I say it unvarnished. I say it without veneer. I have not the learning to do otherwise, and therefore my ignorance is often not detected.
I know the hearts of the People because I have not colored my own. I know when I am right in my own conscience. I do not talk one way in the cloakroom and another way out here. I do not talk one way back there in the hills of Louisiana and another way here in the Senate.

I have one language. Ignorant as it is, it is the universal language within the sphere in which I operate. Its simplicity gains pardon for my lack of letters and education.

Nonetheless my voice will be the same as it has been. Patronage will not change it. Fear will not change it. Persecution will not change it. It cannot be changed while people suffer. The only way it can be changed is to make the lives of these people decent and respectable. No one will ever hear political opposition out of me when that is done."

[obnoxiousdrunk]

92. +1. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. People model what is expected of them.

There are no reasons to believe that white men were always knuckle dragging morons. In fact there are ample reasons to suspect the opposite.

The belief that men are idiots has created that effect.

I would also argue that bars are not the place to catch an average or above caliber of men at or above above average state of enlightenment.

Married men and single men vote in similar ways, but for better or worse, when women marry, their voting patterns change to match the voting pattern of married men.

The DU zeitgeist may consider the votes of men irrelevant, but if that is the case, so are the votes of their wives.

[DonCoquixote]

107. " There are no reasons to believe that white men were always knuckle dragging morons."

No, but you cannot expect said men to vote for people that actively exploit them and then expect us to go "please stop hating us, if we bow lower, will you vote for us?"

We gave compropmised a lot of FDR era basic Liberlaism just to try and please the same "white men" that turn around and vote GOP anyway.

And no, the votes of the wives are never irrelevenat, especially when they vote for their interests.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. I suspect white men voted for FDR

Those who benefited from WPA, REA and CCC certainly did.

[DonCoquixote]

109. well they have not

ever since Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was built around the anger of "white men" was enacted, despite the fact that many of those same southern men benfited from the programs you mentioned. They sold themselves down the river to the GOP because they wanted to keep anyone else but them down, even if it meant they stayed down. As far as Liberals hating white men, you just quoted reasons they did not, or was FDR too liberal for you? Sadly, he would be too liberal for Bill Clinton.

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. The current president has said...

That the people experiencing this trendline


Should consider this trendline



... "a great accomplishment". I think it's reasonable that they may be asking if this represents progress, then what's the end goal?

We’ve got to harness the momentum that we’re seeing in the broader economy and make sure the economy is working for every single American. We’ve got to keep making smart choices. And today, here at RIC, I want to focus on some common-sense steps we can take to help working families right now. In particular, I want to zero in on the choices we need to make to ensure that women are full and equal participants in the economy. (Applause.)

Now, men, I don’t want you to feel neglected. I like men just fine. (Laughter.) But part of the reason that I want this focus is because I was raised by a single mom, and know what it was like for her to raise two kids and go to work at the same time, and try to piece things together without a lot of support. And my grandmother, who never graduated from college but worked her way up to become vice president of a bank, I know what it was like for her to hit the glass ceiling, and to see herself passed over for promotions by people that she had trained. And so some of this is personal, but some of it is also what we know about our economy, which is it’s changing in profound ways, and in many ways for the better because of the participation of women more fully in our economy.

ha. ha. ha.

I don't think that hate is their problem except for hating to be hated. Guys don't advocate for themselves, they suffer individually, and project that hurt in other ways.

[DonCoquixote]

133. Guys don't advocate for themselves, they suffer individually, and project that hurt in other ways.

those that act that way become easy to manipulate and dividee, as far as other ways, yeah, we see that, all too much of it.

as far as this quote:
And so some of this is personal, but some of it is also what we know about our economy, which is it’s changing in profound ways, and in many ways for the better because of the participation of women more fully in our economy.

where do you have the problem? You know, many labor activists and Union members are and were WOMEN, the sort that kept at the picket line when many others went scab. Do you have a problem with women in the economy?

[whatthehey]

126. Always? Certainly not. But their politics are more than any other group

Remember we are talking about the white working class male, not ivory-towered politically enlightened sophisticates. 67% of the population drinks, higher for white males. Why would you think a bar is not representative? I spend a lot of time in them myself and I think my caliber is hardly sub-par. Why would above-average men avoid bars in your opinion? There are others like me there on the political spectrum, but precious few and fewer still who will speak up. I've found the same political concentration in most milieus dominated by white working class males such as softball games, pool and bowling leagues, work sites, car clubs etc. I don't think it's bars that are the problem, other than perhaps in the likelihood of unfettered open expression lubricated by alcohol and male-dominated company. Might there be exceptions? Sure - union meetings perhaps, gay bars/gyms certainly, or Democratic/allied groups for sure. But general access non politically-motivated white working class make gatherings? RW dominated by a mile.

The voting habits of white working class males are certainly not imaginary or in dispute in their RW tilt, and definitely of concern for Dem electoral success. It's just to me a concern that can only be overcome by bastardizing the whole point of being Democratic in the first place. To me, our best strategy with this demographic is to seek to peel off and motivate the "enlightened" minority. I'm not sure vague "expectations" or media nonsense like making Homer and Peter more stupid than Marge and Lois is driving men to vote RW. Why would it or could it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

127. None of my friends, men or women, spend appreciable time in bars.

As my username implies, my friends are not ivory tower politically enlightened sophisticates either.

I'm admittedly not, and never have been, a big fan of bars. I haven't found them to be a good resource for anything but a fight. My twenty-something kids friends tend to drink at home or at friends homes.

I have come to believe that England has a relatively enlightened attitude toward pubs, in that kids are allowed so long as they don't drink. The debauchery resulting from "spring break every day from 5:00 to 02:00 daily" is sidestepped.

Your stated experience is similar to mine: you can't get any kind of intelligent conversation at an american bar, but I find that absence crosses all racial, economic or gender boundaries.

And media definitely shapes attitudes. Were that not the case, advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar a year industry.

[whatthehey]

137. I spend approx 15 hrs a week in bars, w/ a 158 IQ, multiple degrees and a few academic publications

I'm pretty sure I'm proof you can indeed get intelligent conversation in bars. I was discussing, for example, the origin-myth of Sleipnir, ATC privitization possibilities, Twelfth Night, and EV technology with 5 other white men perfectly capable of intelligent contributions to all the above just last night. I've never, in over 30 years of frequent bar-going, had a fight as a patron (I was a bouncer for a while in my youth, and almost all fights I witnessed and handled were started not over politics or intelligence but either women or, strangely, sports.)

But with one other exception, a gay man, that group and everybody else I overheard making sociopolitical comments last night were universally right wing. None of them, including the gay man, could have named more than 5 US Senators or given a thumbnail sketch of Dodd-Frank. Just not important to them. Their politics is visceral and tribal; all adrenal cortex no frontal lobe.

Media shapes attitudes, not intellect. Because Homer is shown to be a stupid troglodyte does not make men stupid troglodytes. Their own choices however make working class white men, as a group, reliably RW, politically obtuse, and immune to rational conversion to liberalism. Media surely had a hand in it, but not media that makes fun of white men; rather media that lionizes and elevates white men like AM hate radio and Fox News.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. ... and this provides you insight into the attitudes of working class white men?

At risk of understatement, you are familiar with a quality of bar with which I am not... i.e. the pool tables in my area were often used for more than pool.

[onecaliberal]

2. Uneducated white working males job prospects

Suck and wages suck because they KEEP voting against the people who would do something to remedy that.
Stupid is as stupid does and that stupid is burning us all.

[Fumesucker]

19. You appear to be implying that intelligence is determined by skin color...

It's really middle class whites who vote en masse against their own economic interests, not so much poor ones.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

Within any education category, richer people vote more Republican. In contrast, the pattern of education and voting is nonlinear. High school graduates are more Republican than non-HS grads, but after that, the groups with more education tend to vote more Democratic. At the very highest education level tabulated in the survey, voters with post-graduate degrees lean toward the Democrats. Except for the rich post-graduates; they are split 50-50 between the parties.

What does this say about America’s elites? If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican.

There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved social and financial success), and you have to go down to the below-$75,000 level of family income, which hardly seems like the American elites to me.

The patterns are consistent for all three of the past presidential elections. (The differences in the higher-income low-education category should not be taken seriously, as the estimates are based on small samples, as can be seen from the large standard errors for those subgroups.)

[onecaliberal]

55. I am in agreement with the OP

It's not just poor white males. I'm calling it like I see it.

[Fumesucker]

59. Everyone in the working class is sliding backwards economically

It's just that working class white men had further to go and are sliding faster.

[hifiguy]

3. Racism is a huge issue here, and probably the biggest one.

There are working class whites who would deny themselves government benefits if only to make sure that the "good for nothin' n-words" wouldn't get them either. These nincompoops cut off their nose to spite their face and brag about it.

[YoungDemCA]

10. Ah yes, the ole' "I will make all of our lives miserable, if it means making your life miserable"

Pettiness.

[napkinz]

37. voting against their own interests ...

[hifiguy]

38. LBJ never spoke words that were more true.

And the Repukes have been proving it since 1968, though it took Raygun to perfect the formula.

[sufrommich]

39. Spot on. nt

[NYC_SKP]

4. Warren owns this demographic.

Draft her, drop Hillary.

[JI7]

7. so minorities should not have a say ?

[Scootaloo]

26. JI7, I've noticed something about internet discussion...

If you have to say something like "So you're saying..." then odds are the person you're talking to said nothing of the sort.

Might want to write that one down on a sticky note and put it on your monitor.

[Inkfreak]

66. So...you're saying you hate kittehs??!! (nt)

[sufrommich]

9. No, the NRA owns that demographic. nt

[JI7]

17. this

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Warren owns that demographic? Huh?

Those guys are voting Republican. They aren't voting for progressives.

[NYC_SKP]

64. Are you saying that white working-class men are all, or mostly, Republican?

Not that it matters because by "own a demographic", I mean the "working-class" part.

She appeals to all parties' working class component.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. I go by election results

The majority of white male voters vote Republican. They supported Romney in huge numbers.

They tend to vote Republican...so it's not like they're going to spurn Hillary because she's not progressive enough and support Warren.

These folks listen to right wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and support politicians like Ted Cruz.

[betterdemsonly]

86. White men are not all working class or even mostly working class

Not everyone votes. Most Americans don't.

[bettyellen]

87. Yep, they don't know they hate Warren yet- only because she hasn't been targeted by Rush and company

Yet.

[dsc]

76. that is unadulterated hooey

Regardless of the merits of the candidates, the math shows Warren lost that demo in her race for Senate (unless she tied among minority men which is highly doubtful to say the least). They didn't have exit polls (at least that I could find) but I am linking a PPP poll that was run in March of 2010 and then an article that described her support based on polls coming in to the election. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_320.pdf

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/women_young_people_and_democra.html

Both show her at best tying men overall but dominating women. Since Massachusetts isn't entirely white, and she won the minority male vote going away, she had to have lost the white male vote by a considerable margin. This is no slam of Warren, none of our candidates have been winning the white male vote, but the fact is none of them have been including Warren.

[NYC_SKP]

84. They sure don't want Hillary Clinton, who has no intention of making their lives better.

Warren does.

MA is not representative of the US.

[dsc]

88. yeah it is vastly more liberal

meaning that she should have done better there any virtually anyone else anywhere else if your theory was correct.

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. The values that Warren holds resonate strongly with working class men.

The fact that she's not a vocal culture warrior helps.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. The problem is not the Democratic party

The problem is the 'working-class' white male voter.

They're easily brainwashed and drawn to xenophobic fascism by people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who have convinced them there's a war against straight white males in America.

[sufrommich]

11. Yep. nt

[hifiguy]

13. Yep and a lot of them are ammosexuals or hard-core bigots to boot.

And I say that as a middle-aged white guy.

[Ex Lurker]

33. In other words, "Those idiots, why won't they vote for us?"

I hear the exact same thing from Republicans talking about minority voters. In Exactly the same words. Good luck winning elections with that bigoted attitude.

[hifiguy]

42. When you tell someone that they are getting economically screwed by

Republicans and their response is "I don't care. Bush will put the n*****s in jail and Dukakis will let them out. I want the n*****s in jail" there isn't much hope for logic working anytime soon or respecting their opinions.

And that is a verbatim conversation I had with a bandmate in 1988. I've had variants of it before and since, but that one was the most blatantly racist.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. There is zero hope for the type of person you describe

I'm not even sure I'd want them to vote for a Democrat if it was possible to convince them.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Anyone who votes Republican, is an idiot.

The good news is that they are no longer needed to win the White House.

The Obama coalition proved it, twice.

But we do have to do a better job of motivating people in off years like 2010 and 2014.

If Hillary wins, and I think it's a pretty good possibility, it would mean the GOP has lost the popular vote 6/7 Presidential elections.

They're dying. Their base is old and dying off, literally.

[JI7]

49. they aren't idiots . they are voting based on bigotry

And republicans do give that to them

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. +1 n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

110. Fuck those rednecks. Right?

Good lord, talk about stereotyping. I don't know that I'd want to stay in a party filled with supercilious twits.

[Cali_Democrat]

115. Yes, fuck Republican rednecks who vote for assholes like Ted Cruz.

They're doing all they can to take this county back to the 1850's.

You don't want to be in the Dem party? Fine with me. Why are you telling me as if I care?

Buh bye.

[Comrade Grumpy]

121. You do know that probably tens of millions of white guys voted for Obama?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/white-guys-voted-for-obama-too/2012/11/09/d165d16e-2a98-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_blog.html

If holier-than-thou assholes want to drive white guys out of the party, don't start crying about it later. When you lose elections.

[Cali_Democrat]

123. My comment wasn't specific to all white guys

My comment was specific to white guys who vote Republican.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. Bullshit.

It is our job to get people to vote for us. It's not our privilege to blame them for being too ignorant to be allowed in our club.

[Cali_Democrat]

120. Anyone who votes Republican, watches fox news, and listens to Rush Limbaugh...

is too far gone.

Statistics show that the majority of straight white males are voting Republican.

I have no interest in trying to court most these people. They're not needed to win Presidential elections.

The Dem party needs to appeal to other demographics, drive up turnout among minorities/women, and leave the fox news watchers to the Republicans.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. Straight white males are voting repulican? Yes, and so are their wives.

I've had enough of people who treat politics as a source of egotistical self-righteous sanctimonious tribalism intended to elevate their own worth by exercising the power to exclude others as unfit to be in their club.

The only point of elections is to gain the power to make beneficial change. You don't succeed by telling half of the country to fuck off.

[Cali_Democrat]

125. The white electorate is shrinking as a percentage of the vote...and it's shrinking fast.

It makes no sense to go after people who watch fox news and think Obama is a communistkenyanmuslim hell bent on destroying America.

It makes more sense to go after the growing demographics who are more reasonable and haven't been captured by folks like Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh.

Sorry.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. When that happens, then who will you kick out of our club in the name of purity? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

150. Reading comprehension appears to be an issue here...

...because you seem to have completely missed my point. I was referring to Republicans. Specifically, folks who listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Fox News and vote for politicians like Ted Cruz. I just pointed out that the majority of white males fall into this category.

It's not about kicking them out of the party. These people aren't in the party. They're voting Republican.

[JI7]

12. we see it on here all the time . women minorities lgbt

Are others and issues concerning us are dismissed.

[HereSince1628]

16. "The biggest driver of white working-class disaffection, however, is clearly economic insecurity"

I think that's really true in Wisconsin.

And when it's mentioned it must be said the fear from that insecurity is aimed at FREE TRADE deals.

IF ONLY (!) the democratic party acted like my father's democratic party and tried to address that fear!

[JI7]

20. that doesn't make sense since they voted romney

[BKH70041]

18. Follow the money

Democrats' hunt for the white working-class male voter = those who have and control the money

women, minorities, young people = those with a lot less money. A lot less.

[JI7]

21. odd considering all the criticisms of Hillary and other democrats

For reaching out to women and minorities

[BKH70041]

23. Women and minorities will go Democratic.

They do anyway. But if Hillary is the nominee and with Obama campaigning her behalf......

I just don't see that being an issue.

[JI7]

24. turnout is important. Obama campAigned hard in black .Hispanic.young areas

If wasn't just about winning the demographic against the opponent.

It's about getting a huge number out to vote.

[BKH70041]

32. Allow me to clarify.

I just don't see huge turnout within those demographics being an issue.

[JI7]

51. It's always an issue. obama had to work hard for the high turnouts

It's one of the most important parts of election campaigns.

[BKH70041]

61. Restated

I just don't see working hard to ensure a huge turnout within those demographics being an issue.

So far everything you add on is, at least to me, a given with any election. It will be the same in '16. And they will turn out in numbers. What's their alternative? Vote Republican? Vote third party? Not vote at all? Won't happen. They'll fall in line.

So the Democratic party "hunt(ing) for the white working-class male voter" is reaching out to a demographic the party once dominated, as well they should. Because economically speaking, among the working class, they hold and control most of the money.

[leveymg]

22. Used to call him a Reagan Democrat. Described perfectly here:

Definitely a small-screen kind of guy who the DNC/Third Way/Hillary campaign is reaching out to.

[betterdemsonly]

25. The democrats have dropped the ball on economics

It isn't that working class whites ALL vote republican and are all gun nuts. It is that most don't vote now because they don't see the point. They have had their incomes decline under both democrats and republicans. Also minorities and women are over-enthralled by symbolic candidacies like Clinton and Obama... These conservative minority and women candidates, have not been good for working class minorities and women. Both groups have seen huge income declines under the rein of New Democrats like Clinton and Obama, yet they are still pollyannas over the fact that these candidates technically come from their group. Most early success stories among discriminated against groups are collaborators with the Rich. Clinton and Obama are not exceptional in this re-guard.

I am a women by the way and Clinton will no brownie points from me for being one.

[JI7]

27. women and minorities are just too stupid to see what

The white men see

[msanthrope]

31. Yes---hasn't that been mansplained to you, yet? nt

[betterdemsonly]

34. Womansplaned. I am a women n/t

[betterdemsonly]

36. They don't have as many shiny objects blinding them to facts.

New Democrats do not represent working class people of any color or gender identity. If people were more informed and less ignorant every last one of them would be primaried out of our party rather than made a candidate.

[JI7]

68. of course they do, the shiny object is the Gun which is why they vote republican

they voted for Romney.

it's funny trying to claim they don't vote democratic because they aren't liberal enough yet they vote for fucking romney and other republicans .

[betterdemsonly]

71. Most people don't vote at all so that

is not true. Also white and working class white aren't the same. Do you consider Cliven Bundy to be a working class person? Do you consider Ted Nugent working class? Statistically the gun nuts are wealthier than average whites http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

[pampango]

72. "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or

anti-immigrant or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." And they join the republican base which exemplifies all those views.

[betterdemsonly]

73. So called anti-trade views aren't the republican base.

tpp has no democratic sponsers.

[pampango]

75. Of course they are. The majority of the republican base opposes TPP. And it's not just the TPP

that they oppose. Several state GOP party platforms in 2008 and 2012 adopted a platform supporting a US withdrawal from the UN, the WTO, the IMF, etc. It is not just the tea-party fringe of the GOP that is anti-trade, it is the majority of their base.

We all know their base is pro-gun, pro-religion and anti-immigrant, as well. I think Obama was quite accurate in his statement.

[betterdemsonly]

80. The majority of the democratic base opposes TPP too

and your attempts to conflate these things with the UN, which is not a trade organization are noted, along with other right wing ideas you tend to support, like neocon wars, and austerity against the people of Greece. The idea that there is anything progressive about undermining laws against environmental and labor exploitation is just neolib agitprop. The fact that these ideas have seeped into our party is the problem, and the reason we are losing these people.

[pampango]

81. No it doesn't.

What 'other right wing ideas' do I support? The majority of the Democratic base supports the TPP while the majority of republicans oppose it. Who is supporting 'right wing ideas'?

I know that the UN is not a trade organization. It is just one of many international organizations that the right wants out of because they compromise the god the right worships - national sovereignty.

That does not change the fact that the republican base opposes the TPP and wants the US out of the WTO - which most definitely is a trade organization. And that is not an idea "supported by the right wing" that I support.

[betterdemsonly]

83. we aren't talking about the republican base we are talking about working class whites.

while a slight majority of the dem base do indicate support, they arent the working class either. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024414902

The public is overwhelmingly opposed to the tpp, so by sucking up to the corporates, democrats are alienating all but some people who care about social liberalism only . People who care about economic issues as well as social issues are turned off.
I don't oppose tpp because I dislike foreigners. I oppose it because I dislike corporate America. They are not elected to anything, by anyone, and to allow them to govern us is undemocratic.

[pampango]

90. So "while a slight majority of the democratic base do indicate support" for the TPP,

we should not support it because the democratic base is not "working class" and "the public" (republicans and independents?) "is overwhelmingly opposed"? Our base is not working class, but the republican's is? Should our electoral position on trade should be based on being "republican-lite" in order to attract the votes of republicans and independents?

So the Democrats who support TPP are "sucking up to the corporates" and are "alienating all but some people who care about social liberalism only"? And "people who care about economic issues as well as social issues are turned off"?

Does that mean that republicans who oppose it are 'standing up to corporates', attracting people who care about issues other than social liberalism and turning on "people who care about economic issues as well as social issues"?

So the Democratic base is wrong (perhaps for "idealistic" reasons, perhaps for "corporate sell-out", anti-working-class reasons) and their view should be disregarded. The republican base and independents are right (if for the 'wrong' reasons - racism, xenophobia, etc. - or maybe for the 'right' reasons because they are anti-corporate, working-class friendly) and we need to seriously consider their views.

I disagree.

[betterdemsonly]

93. I don't think the party should just appeal to identity groups

minorities, gays and women aren't necessarily liberal. I think people who oppose tpp are right, because that is corporate dictatorship. I think most are opting not to vote at all. This favors republicans. Those that vote may vote for them, but they aren't a majority of eligible voters. I do think there are people who are socially liberal who are economically reactionary. Look at pro-gay libertarians. Frankly Obama and Hillary are economic reactionaries. I think they may well have reshaped what is called the democratic base in there own image. There are lots of silicon valley glibertarians in Obama's corner. Many were on his campaign team. You are into strawmanning people to support your own right wing agenda. You support ukrainian revolutionaries in an unquestioning manner even though they are giving the ukrainian people the most dreadful austerity cuts. In the ukraine elderly people no longer have pensions. There are no longer any safetynets for the poor.

[pampango]

94. I certainly agree that we should not JUST appeal to identity groups, but

we should not ignore them as republicans do.

Obama and Hillary are economic reactionaries. I think they may well have reshaped what is called the democratic base in there own image.

That is a theory that I have not heard before. Obama (and Hillary?) have 'reshaped' the Democratic base 'in their own reactionary image'. Which would then mean that it is 'progressive' to ignore the wishes of the base of the party because they have been brainwashed or 'reshaped'. That is quite a handy theory you have there.

Does that theory explain how the republican base has been 'reshaped' to oppose the 'reactionary', "corporate dictatorship" (TPP) that Obama supports? Let me guess. Obama (and Hillary) brainwash the base into being economic reactionaries, knowing that the republican base will automatically oppose whatever Obama (and Hillary) support thus becoming 'economic progressives' and opposing the TPP. I like it.

Perhaps we can discuss Ukraine in an OP dedicated to events there.

[betterdemsonly]

96. I never said the republican party opposes being reactionary

I never said they had a progressive position on anything. I don't think the white working class are there base. That is your striawman. Argue with it yourself. Supporting tpp is either reactionary or uninformed. It sure as shit is not progressive what ever the motivation may be. I can tell that you have all day to post judging from the wordiness of all you imaginings of beliefs. I am sorry I don't.

[pampango]

97. Except when they oppose the TPP which is supported by the "economic reactionary" Obama (and Hillary)

I never said they had a progressive position on anything.

Doesn't being opposed to the TPP meet your definition of a "progressive position"?

I don't think the white working class are there base.

I agree in the sense that the interests of the white working class have nothing in common with those of the 1% that runs the GOP. But the republican party knows that they can't win an election without an overwhelming majority of the white vote. In order to compete in elections they use the hate and fear of 'others' tactic, which we discussed above, to attract white votes that it can't win otherwise because they don't have the interests of the working class at heart.

Come back when you have more time. This is issue sure is not going away.

[betterdemsonly]

98. Since Obama is winning with most of GOP backing him and the Democrats opposed

Where do you get this idea that the GOP oppose TPP?

[pampango]

99. Glad you're back. Here you go:

Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: 60% of Democrats see TTIP as a good thing compared with 44% of Republicans, while 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-

1552039

[betterdemsonly]

101. The first poll was taken along time ago before most would have heard of TPP

The second poll actually shows only democrats most strongly supportive of Obama like this. They self identify 'LIBERAL" but the word must not be defined in the economic sense, unless you are using a pre-FDR definition as in ''Classical Liberal" The regular democrats and independents are turning against this in huge numbers.

[pampango]

103. No. The first was done 5 months ago. Your knowledge of who had heard of TPP and

who had not at that time is quite impressive. Perhaps I don't assume that Democrats are as clueless and uninformed as you think they are. Apparently republicans had heard enough about it not to like it. Are republicans better informed than Democrats?

The second poll actually shows only democrats most strongly supportive of Obama like this.

No. It says "only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea" of fast track. And that poll shows that conservative republicans oppose it overwhelmingly (85% to 8%).

They self identify but it must not be used in the economic sense.

We will have to inform those folks who self identify as liberal that they are not actually liberal in your humble opinion. What about those folks who self identify as conservative and who oppose fast-track? Are they actually liberals and don't know it?

The regular dems and independents are turning against this in huge numbers.

I try hard not to reject polls and other evidence just because I disagree with them. Any evidence you could provide would be most welcome.

[betterdemsonly]

105. He can't win with only people who self identify liberal democrats

He needs independents and people who don't embrace the nebulous word liberal.

[sufrommich]

29. Democrats lost white working class men in the 1980s,

the GOP were bleeding them off way before that too.

[JI7]

30. coincidence it happened along with passage of civil rights laws

?

[sufrommich]

35. The woman's rights movement too. Here's an interesting article

about the Hard Hat riot in 1970, construction workers rioted because the Gov. of New York ordered flags to half staff to honor students killed at Kent State:

On May 4, 1970, thirteen students were shot, four fatally, at Kent State University in Ohio during a protest at US involvement in the Vietnam War and the Cambodian Campaign. As a show of sympathy for the dead students, then-Republican Mayor of New York City John Lindsay ordered all flags at New York City Hall to be flown at half-staff the same day.[1]

The US labor movement was deeply divided over support for President Richard Nixon's Vietnam War policy. AFL-CIO President George Meany and most labor leaders in the United States were vehemently anti-communist and strongly supported US military involvement in Southeast Asia. But by 1970, union members were divided in their support for the war.[2][page needed]

One of the strongest supporters of the president's war policy was Peter J. Brennan. Brennan was president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, an alliance of building and construction unions in the New York City area. He was also president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of New York, the statewide umbrella group for construction unions. Additionally, he served as the vice president of the New York City Central Labor Council and the New York State AFL-CIO, umbrella groups for all labor unions in these respective areas.[3][4] Brennan was a registered Democrat who had lobbied strongly for Democrats through the 1950s and 1960s, but increasingly supported Republican candidates as support for skilled labour unions decreased.[3] The building and construction unions were overwhelmingly blue-collar and male, and large majorities of these union members supported Nixon's Vietnam policy.[2]

Shortly after the Kent State shootings, anti-war protesters announced they would hold a rally near City Hall to commemorate the four dead students. Brennan decided to organize a counter-rally of construction workers to show support for the Nixon administration.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot


I worked a blue collar job my whole life, most of my interactions were with white blue collar men, the vast majority of them are staunch republicans and our jobs were union jobs,there's no economic explanation for that.

[Fumesucker]

44. I cited the union hard hat violence against anti-war protesters the other day

The unions did themselves a great deal of damage with that.

The economic explanation is that union members made good money, had lots of protections and great benefits, that seems to make people conservative rather than liberal. The generation that rioted against the anti-war protesters was mostly the Silent Generation while the protesters were the earlier Boomers. The Silent Generation had been raised in an extremely jingoistic culture and it came to them naturally to be conservative.

Someone once said that people become conservative when they have something to conserve, union members had a lot to conserve back then.

[sufrommich]

50. Well,I'm 58,female and worked a blue collar job which was

mostly blue collar white males. Most of my fellow workers were baby boomers and younger. There were very few of us democrats in the group and lots of conservative republicans. This isn't a generational thing,it's passed from one generation to the next and it has nothing to do with economics.I guarantee you,if I went back and asked those guys how they feel about Warren or Sanders,most would laugh and call them commies.

[Fumesucker]

57. Eh, I'm a white male, older than you and blue collar

When I started working there were plenty of liberals I worked with in construction jobs but I was never union and we were mostly a bunch of would-be hippies.

Fast forward to 1980, the hippies were mostly gone and I was arguing on the job with conservatives about Reagan.

I've already posted this once on this thread, naturally without getting any reply, in fact in the eight or ten times I've posted it on DU I don't think I've ever had a reply to it.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/03/23/voting-patterns-of-americas-whites-from-the-masses-to-the-elites/

Within any education category, richer people vote more Republican. In contrast, the pattern of education and voting is nonlinear. High school graduates are more Republican than non-HS grads, but after that, the groups with more education tend to vote more Democratic. At the very highest education level tabulated in the survey, voters with post-graduate degrees lean toward the Democrats. Except for the rich post-graduates; they are split 50-50 between the parties.

What does this say about America’s elites? If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican.

There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved social and financial success), and you have to go down to the below-$75,000 level of family income, which hardly seems like the American elites to me.

The patterns are consistent for all three of the past presidential elections. (The differences in the higher-income low-education category should not be taken seriously, as the estimates are based on small samples, as can be seen from the large standard errors for those subgroups.)

[Cosmic Kitten]

79. This posts "ruins" a perfectly good stereotype!

<snark>
The Democratic party
has worked very hard
to construct the meme
that all white-male-voters
are "ammosexuals"
enthralled with the bible,
and misogynist to the core.

And here you come with
your "facts", charts, and
anecdotes to try and
undermine perfectly good
talking points that have
maintained an artificial
divide in the public perception!

And to disprove this nefarious
attempt at inserting reason
we will "prove" you wrong!
THE NRA! Duck Dynasty! done!

</snark>

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. This is what it was coincident with.

High school educated men today earn half what their dads did.

"Because they hate women" Is the stupidest and most self-destructive explanation for the shift imaginable. On the contrary, changes in the last thirty years have rendered them unable to support their families.

[hifiguy]

40. Since the Nixon campaign of 1968.

That's when it started in earnest. Appeal to the bigots. Reagan just perfected the technique.

[sufrommich]

41. Very true.nt

[hifiguy]

47. I think you replied to the wrong person.

Check my sig banner.

[Ken Burch]

52. Oh shit, you're right. Will delete there and re-post in response to the other poster.

Sorry.

[hifiguy]

54. No problem

[Ken Burch]

53. And HRC used a very Nixon-like strategy to win white working-class voters in the late '08 primaries.

And it won her those votes even though there was nothing in her actual program that was ANY more pro-worker than anything in Obama's program(in fact, as a free-trade loyalist, she was automatically less pro-worker than Obama, since you can't be pro-worker and defend NAFTA and the TPP)

And she has never apologized for pandering to the idea that working-class whites were RIGHT to fear and distrust a black canddate.

[hifiguy]

56. That particular fact seems to have been swept into a space warp

by HRC supporters. I remember it very well indeed and was completely disgusted by it.

[betterdemsonly]

74. Her appeal wasn't to the working class though it was to mild racists. n/t

[upaloopa]

28. I always like these kind of OP's

As a white male it is fun to see what I think as stated by posters to these threads.

[Comrade Grumpy]

111. I know. Kinda feels like we're unwanted.

[Eleanors38]

130. Yeah, saves me the effort!

[Ken Burch]

45. You get white working class voters by talking about class and to fight corporate power.

NOT to promise to keep minorities and LGBTQ people at a distance, or to promise to ignore at activists.\

white working class voters want to know you're fighting for their economic interests...they aren't fixated on who you promise to hate.

[n2doc]

58. Murdoch et al have been very effective in brainwashing white males

They have told them all of their problems are due to "Liberals, Illegal Immigrants, Affirmative Action and Equal rights laws, moral degeneration,Gun restrictions, and deficits". This has not been countered effectively by Democrats. AM radio is saturated with RW lies. The MSM never goes against this propaganda.

[hifiguy]

63. It all comes down to this, (I swiped this graphic from napkinz)

[Eleanors38]

131. Yep. White males are the all-purpose foil. Man of a thousand stereotypes.

[hifiguy]

132. I am a middle-aged white guy and have known so many others

who are like this it hardly can be called a stereotype any more.

And as some humorist, whose name I cannot recall, said, within every stereotype is a nasty little grain of truth.

[Eleanors38]

134. One side says "blame these people." The other says "You stupid asshole."

[sadoldgirl]

60. I think what motivates them to vote R

is fear: fear of change, fear of the "other&quot whether minority or gender.
And it is bleated into their ears day and night:
"You want the good old days back" or "You want your country back"
"The liberals don't allow you to do so."

There is a small grain of truth to the last statement,
because most liberals are looking for change.

The problem with that is that they don't want to see the
damaging change the conservatives have brought
to our country. Willful ignorance.

[Trajano]

70. What percentage of them

Are fearful?

[pampango]

77. Well said, sadoldgirl. Their motivation is fear: fear of change, fear of the "other"

(whether minority or gender). It is the one constant you hear from their politicians, their TV stations, their radio personalities, etc. Their definition of 'other' may change depending on the circumstance, but the 'other' is always someone to be afraid of.

[betterdemsonly]

85. The republicans are motivated by that. Working class white is not the same thing n/t

[pampango]

91. Agreed. Although republicans use fear of 'others' to attract the votes of working class whites.

They really have no choice since they can't win elections with their pro-1% policies. Appealing to fear and hate is all they have to go on. And their 1% powers want to be sure that that fear and hatred is not focused on them so they promote 'others' as the enemy of the people. Immigrants, gays, Jews, one religious group or another, foreigners, etc. have served as 'others' to hate at various times throughout history. All to the benefit of the ruling elite.

And they have pretty much given up on winning the votes of ethnic and racial minorities, so they have to win a huge majority of white working class votes any way they can. When a party like the GOP does not have the policies to attract these working class votes, they have to come up with a different strategy that is not reality-based. They've done a good job of coming up with a fear-based strategy that works pretty well for them.

[Romulox]

113. You push radical, rightwing "free trade" here day and night. To you, the "others" are American workers

of all persuasions.

[pampango]

116. Nice to see you around, Romulox. I see your preference for discussing policies not posters

has not changed. That is refreshing. Too many people engage in personal attacks without any substance.

[Romulox]

140. I can't return that sentiment.

I see your preference for discussing policies not posters has not changed. That is refreshing. Too many people engage in personal attacks without any substance.

You have no right to have your views go unchallenged. And you are engaging in the same behavior (an ad hominem attack) that you complain about. In the selfsame sentence.

Do you mean to engage in hypocrisy, or are you just oblivious to your own garbage?

[pampango]

141. I didn't think you could. That's OK. n/t

[HockeyMom]

62. Teachers

My SIL, college educated, UNION, white, male, and a Democrat. Working class????? You will never become rich being a teacher, unless you are the CEO of a For Profit Charter school.

[liberal_at_heart]

89. How about just concentrating on the working class period? Democrats have abandoned all

working class voters, and I for one am done voting for candidates that ignore working class voters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. This is what has happened to the wages of working class men.

"But this is only high school educated ones!" You say. That's true enough, but the proportion of men getting college degrees is basically unchanged since 1970. The collapsing wages of the 75% of men who don't have degrees have brought down their average across the board.



It is undeniable that liberals are frequently hostile to men generally. Anyone who remembers (or in fact participated in) the hysteria and garment rending over simply creating a men's group at DU can't deny this with a straight face.

Getting men back to the party is easier than we think... if we in fact had control of our own egos.

[Romulox]

112. The party of NAFTA, TPP, Bank bailouts wonders WHYOWHY won't the poor vote for us???

Must be racism!

[hollowdweller]

114. Opposing free trade agreement would bring some white working class males back in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

149. Yup. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

151. Newp

Because they would find something else to complain about, like women demandign equal wages for equal work. It might seem nice to think they would realize that those of diufferent color and gender may have common interest with them, but nope, whatever they would be given would just be taken by them, and they would shove out anyone else but them. I remember very vividly the way Unions demonized Hispanic workers, and while folks like Trumka have made HEROIC measures to fix that, you still see very thinly veiled anti Hispanic and anti women senitments by the same people who talk about how they are pro union liberals.

Not that killing trade deals is not the right thing to do, but many of us have no illusions about what these to use a term used throughout this thread "working class white men" would do. After we worked to get these jobs back, they would knock us aside, eat all the food at the table, and expect us to be grateful that they could return to being the favorite children of society and default power setting. To the woman that asked for equal wages for equal work, they would yell "woman, fix me a sammich!" to the Latino that worked with them, they would say "go home, we don't want immigrants!" and it would devolve into some Pabst Blue Ribbon fake working class lovefest, to be followed by them losing power when the elite of society did the whole "dem people are takin yer jawbs!" chant , to make sure they made sure to hate their fellow workers rather than the bosses.

We will do the right thing, we will kill or repeal those free trade deals, and get those jobs back, just do NOT expect us to take orders from you when we do, after all, these jobs were lost on your watch.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. Is your entire political world view predicated on a sexual/racial stereotype?

Oh, but I'm sure it's the virtuous kind of bias. "Oppress the white guys so they can't oppress you".

[DonCoquixote]

155. no

It is the idea that we have top do so much to somehow keep one demogrpahic happy, when we could use the energy to appeal all ALL SORTS OF WORKERS who are ALL GETTING SCREWED over. Black white woman man, it does not matter to the furnaces of walmart and Koch! But we have to do this tapdance because the myth is there that unless we liberals stop being liberals and start trying to make one demogrpahic feel more imprtant than the others, we will lose.

Meanwhile, the same folks that claim to represent that oen dempogrpahicn are luaghing it up as they preparer to send their jobs to china, then India, then Africa, then anywhere else where the labor is cheap.

[philosslayer]

124. Sounds to me like the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party, not the other way around

And if Democrats can win without them, I'm not sure what the issue is.

[Eleanors38]

129. The "white working class" knows it is hated by many in the Party. It acts accordingly. nt

[CTyankee]

135. That is evolving rapidly, thanks to Occupy Wall St. that got the ball rolling on

income inequality. Now the new paradigm is the 99% vs. the 1%. The war against labor wasn't waged by white liberals. It succeeded for reasons Lyndon Johnson predicted in one of the above quotes and a kind of exceptionalism that preached that workers don't need unions. And once labor was no longer an effective counter weight to corporate interests, we started down the road to income inequality.

And remember who started the Occupy movement? The Dirty Hippies...

[Eleanors38]

145. I hope you're right. The "old" labor movement grew out of dissatisfaction with what passed

for unions & guilds even earlier.

[Rex]

136. I'm right here, I'm not so sure about this article.

The working white male voter posts on this board all the time and votes in most elections.

I think this article is mixing up FUD with classism.

[davidn3600]

139. Remember that this demographic was hit the hardest in the recent economic recession

White, working class men (especially ones in their 40s and 50s) were hit more than any other group. They lost the most jobs. They lost the most money. So that's why their pessimism numbers are high. And the Democrats have not really done much at all to focus on this group's issues. That's why they are starting to bleed away from the party.

The GOP has serious problems when it comes to presidential politics, but they have huge advantages on the local levels. If whites continue to bleed away from the Democrats, the Democrats will never hold the House of Representatives again. Identity politics is going to destroy the country with gridlock.

[Warpy]

152. Democratic leaders need to realize what a beating white working class males have taken for 40 years

The decline in wages has hurt white males especially hard when compared to women and minorities, who were already facing depressed wages due to the various bigotries.

White married women and mothers didn't enter the workforce because of some sort of feminist zeal, they did so because the white male no longer earned enough in terms of purchasing power to support a family. Women's wages were necessary to achieve the sort of lifestyle their parents had enjoyed, minus mom in the home, taking care of things full time.

Democrats will find those working class white males quickly if they pull their heads out and realize that depressed wages are the biggest problem out there, that the policy of depressing wages in order to end the inflation built into fiat money has been a complete flop.

Conservative Democrats did largely abandon the middle class and the working class. As long as they keep it up, they're going to have to struggle for votes, especially from the group that has seen the biggest drop in wages: working white males.

[TBF]

153. Economic inequality -

and it's not just the white male high school graduates. The white male college graduates are losing jobs mid-steam (middle age) and cannot recoup the earnings. They turn to the repugs and get "trust Jesus", they turn to dems and get "sorry TPP" ... these guys just want a job.

Whichever party convinces them they might be able to actually have a job & earn a living is going to win them over. Aside from the extreme religious freaks these guys really are not caring about abortions, gay marriage etc. - they are just not their issues. They care about putting food on the table. Unfortunately many have the view that all middle-aged white guys are homophobic, racist, etc, and that is simply just not the case. Figure out how to get jobs in the country (as opposed to shipping them out) and you will have loyal voters again.