Hillary Clinton Sees Continued Weakness With White Voters
Source: WSJ
By PETER NICHOLAS
Hillary Clinton is riding a wave of encouraging poll numbers coming off her performance at the Democratic debate last week, shoring up her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner.
However well-positioned she may be in the Democratic field, a deeper look at the numbers shows some potential vulnerabilities for Mrs. Clinton in a general election in November 2016.
Consider white voters.
The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that 64% of white men have an unfavorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared with just 26% who see her in a favorable light. Those numbers are moving in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton. In September, the Journal poll showed 59% of white men had a negative view of her.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/21/hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-show-possible-problems-in-a-general-election/?mod=blog_flyover
olddots
(10,237 posts)this is baffling .
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And actually, John Kerry too.
Lychee2
(405 posts)From the article:
You should try reading the actual article sometime. Then there would be some ridiculous things that you would not say.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is nauseating, and certainly seems in line with your support of Trey Gowdy and your promotion of that ghoulish Benghazi ad.
Lychee2
(405 posts)Now quit stalking me. I believe there are rules against that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Faux pas
(14,646 posts)only one I know.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:51 PM - Edit history (2)
I come from a large Irish family, are white males are
for the Dem's: They are voting for Hillary, and Tammy Duckworth,
we have all give a little money to both campaigns.
Lychee2
(405 posts)If you really are Irish, it should be. But your headline is incomprehensible.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Lychee2
(405 posts)From the article:
But then, you don't read articles, do you?
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)this is an empirical fact.
white women voted for Romney over Obama 56-42
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I'm a proud progressive, and always have been.
Additionally, I not only voted for Obama in both general elections, but also caucused and voted for him in the 2008 Primary. Incidentally, Obama got nearly 60% of the 2008 primary vote here in Maine- which happens to be the whitest state in the nation. Vermont being the 2nd whitest state, was also nearly 60% in the primary vote for Obama.
-Just saying...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of our demographic are that way.
But, when the votes are counted, we're in the minority within our own demographic.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I didn't mean to appear to be jumping on you. I know that you are just being the messenger.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)recognizing that there is significant dissent within that demographic, though. one of the dangers of using numbers to describe human behavior
peace
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in favor Romney over Obama in 2012.
Lychee2
(405 posts)From the article:
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think you should post that thirteen more times in this thread... just to be on the safe side.
NonMetro
(631 posts)Not good! Bye-bye White House if women continue to jump ship.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the "Unfavorable view" metric does not equal "Continu(ing) to jump ship."
But this is also a demographic she needs to carry to win, and she's supposed to be strong among all women. Doesn't look like it! I mean, first the Democrats write off white men - who needs their votes? - then we write off Southern Whites as a bunch of racists - who needs their votes? - so now we're going to write off white women? Who are we going to write off next?
And yet people wonder why Republicans have 31 governorships, control 2/3's of state houses - nearly half where they have both houses - and have the largest majorities in congress since the 1920's.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama lost white men 62-35
Obama lost white women 56-42
and he still kicked Mitt Romney's ass.
NonMetro
(631 posts)Who needs their votes? Not us. That's for sure!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Lychee2
(405 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You are peddling race-baiting and ignorance
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Do you really expect the same for Hillary?
Lychee2
(405 posts)Really?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)White people are not the only voters in the US. You keep forgetting that.
Obama did despite losing amongst white women 56-42.
Obviously, she needs a certain % of white voters, but everyone already knew that.
If she wins 40-41% of white voters, she'll win the general election easily.
Lychee2
(405 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You need to become better informed and educated before you're really qualified to discuss this subject with intelligent people
Lychee2
(405 posts)That is not a surprising fact, but an important one, which you seem to conveniently "forget."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)She will not get a majority of white voters, or of white women voters.
She does not need to. She needs a majority of ALL voters.
Kingofalldems
(38,425 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)I guess there just aren't as many White men as there used to be!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Poor Rupert Murodch just lost a great friend and liar-buddy in Canada, and in
Australia recently as well. And now to lose America to a black man and then a woman? The old man must realize the propaganda is no longer working?
What if the white male voter can no longer be trusted to voted stupidly, then what?
Hard times for the world-famous propagandist and fascism-lover.
NonMetro
(631 posts)I think we should also make it clear to them that they're not welcome in our party, either. Don't you?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)This is not Huff Post!
NonMetro
(631 posts)This is politics. You said "Conclusion: who needs white male voters? " Democrats - and although I plead guilty to being a new poster here - I am a life long Democrat, and I want to see our nominee win, and I'm sure everyone else does, too. Well, it's not going to happen if we keep telling one group after another that they're not important to us. Maybe next time 75% of white males will vote against our candidate, or 80%. Maybe white females, who are not that "important" to us anymore, either, will vote for the Republicans in higher percentages, too!
And maybe in 2016 Republicans will win the presidency, increase their majorities in both houses of congress, and have 40 instead of 31 governorships!
Now, let me know again if I did not give proper credit to the intelligence of others!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)When major media outlets (such as the WSJ) put out commentary "analyzing" polling results, and title the commentary with a negative spin, without a link to the actual poll ... the commentary is likely to be spin to support the negative commentary.
It's a lot like sending a picture of a rainy day and telling them that it's raining ... without noting that at that moment, it's not raining and the sun is shining.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)then WSJ/Fox readers might be tempted to think for themselves.
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts)That is a pool of voters that are notoriously resistant to diversity and anything else that threatens their authoritay.
Lychee2
(405 posts)So I guess that means Democrats will "never win" with Hillary as the candidate?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Lychee2
(405 posts)I never said that. And you know it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as a group
The Journal poll showed that 38% of white women see Mrs. Clinton in a favorable light, versus 49% who hold a negative view of her.
So I guess that means Democrats will "never win" with Hillary as the candidate?
you wrote that.
Democrats can WIN the election while LOSING white women and white men voters.
NonMetro
(631 posts)And we didn't need this group or that group to do it. We had it in the bag all along!
BTW, when did the results come in? I seem to have missed the official announcement that Hillary Clinton is the new President. Yippee!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No one is saying the election is wrapped up, or that we don't need any white voters.
What people are saying is the simple, indisputable truth that Democrats can win the national election while not winning the majority of white voters.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Non-Hispanic Black or African American - 12.2%
Non-Hispanic Asian - 4.7%
Hispanic or Latino - 16.4%
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and still kicked McCain and Romney like they were soccer balls.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But in the end, due to social media, the corporate media will be neutered.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)seriously and use it judiciously.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Let's just leave it at that.
JI7
(89,241 posts)RandySF
(58,533 posts)If only whites voted, the Republicans would be least of our worries.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its like trying to fish w/o bait.
aceofblades
(73 posts)I think it is somewhat problematic to extrapolate too much from this when it is comparing exit polls among those who voted to a random sample of , presumably, registered voters(not "likely" voters or those that have actually voted)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Cerridwen
(13,252 posts)Kinda weird they don't differentiate. I wonder what the actual results indicate broken down by party and so on.
eta: direct link to poll results: http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NBCWSJOct2015PollFinal.pdf
Enrique
(27,461 posts)maybe a speech at an Historically White College
TexasBushwhacker
(20,148 posts)think. I've never understood all the hate directed at the Clintons, Hillary or Bill, but I acknowledge it's there. That's why I'm concerned about whether she can win the GE. Nevertheless, Obama did just fine without the majority of the white male vote.