Revenge of the white men

[RKP5637]

(Does anyone believe this is real?)


"LA Times

"Revenge of the white men"
Victims of the 'he-cession' are turning against the Democrats, and that could sway the November elections.
By David Paul Kuhn

March 22, 2010


Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38% -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting but also pulled in 41% of white male voters. Suddenly, there were millions more white men voting the Democratic ticket.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but rather because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38% ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kuhn22-2010mar22,0,754352.story?track=rss

[el_bryanto]

1. yeah - i've read this story pretty regularly for a long time

It's a popular prediction. We'll see if this one actually comes true.

Bryant

[RedCloud]

2. What about all those pissed off at racist Republican tactics? Why not tell this?

[mod mom]

3. Should be "Revenge of the Uneducated and/or Selfish White Men"

My husband is a white man and fully supports HC reform although he would have preferred a national HC program.

[RKP5637]

6. That's what I think too... I found the article pretty biased. I would have liked

a national HC program too, but I do think this is a start.

[Romulox]

10. Democracy has NEVER been about selflessness.

By definition, it's about "enlightened self interest".

[MellowDem]

4. It could be real...

but a lot of the reason for a Republican landslide will not just lie with the enthusiasm of white conservatives, but with the traditional non-enthusiasm of non-white Dems in mid-term elections. Hopefully something can be done to keep voting levels relatively high for Dems, but the way our democracy is set up, being poor makes it more likely that they won't vote, which is bad for the Dems.

I suppose you could look at it another way as well, that white women, who have benefitted a lot in this current economic environment relative to men, will support Dems in droves.

Whenever it comes to mid-terms, Republicans will have a natural advantage in turnout, unfortunately.

[CanonRay]

5. I'm a white man

50's, no less, and I sure in hell don't see myself voting for Palin et al.

[LostInAnomie]

7. It's the same shit every election cycle. The media fabricates some group...

... that is going to sway everything one way or the other.

2000 - Soccer Moms
2004 - Nascar Dads
2008 - Hockey Moms
2010 - The He-Cessioned

It's almost always a load of shit. People vote along their normal voting lines.

[RKP5637]

8. Yeah, anything to sell newspapers or air time. I've taken to listening to the BBC

world news when I have a chance. At least it's a variety of news across the world. The media in this country is always in a rut and generally same old shit IMO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. I actually think it is more than that -

yes, they manufacture a 'key demographic' each time, but the object is to split the electorate, to distract from the issues and focus on identity politics. It's not just about ratings and advertising sales for their programming. There is a very deliberate intent in dragging the discussion in one direction or another. After all, when all the media is worrying about what the Soccer Moms are thinking, who is worrying about what the international community is thinking?

I remember when it was 'angry white men' - back in the 90s, with the rise of the militias, the loss of power by the republicans after 12 disastrous years and an economic recession. Now, we've simply come full circle, back to 'angry white men' under remarkably similar circumstances.

[Fire1]

11. The article may be real but the content is bullshit. n/t

[hfojvt]

12. pretty stupid article

"For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support ..."

The huge part was because of 3rd party candidates. Clinton "only" got 49.23% of the vote in 1996 because Perot got 8.4%. Get rid of Perot and Clinton easily pulls more than 50%. The same was probably true in 1992 when Perot took 18.91%. Clinton took 53% of the non-Perot voters. The same was true in 2000 as well. Nader only took 2.73% but get rid of Nader and Gore takes about 90% of the Nader votes and is again over 50%.

So that "For more than three decades" bit is just a load of crap.

Also, 41% is not really significantly more than 38%. Obama won the election by more than 3% and that 3% is only of a certain type of voter "white male" making it less than 1% of the electorate.

[RKP5637]

13. Thanks for your analysis of this article! n/t