The Democratic Party encompasses everyone, which includes white men. We love white men, actually we love all men, actually we love everyone......

to the "horse race" this is how they operate, create all the fault lines or separate frames that you can and divide the people versus doing quality analysis on the critical issues of the day.

Turning the election in to a "reality T.V. show."

Thanks for the thread, DCBib.

Of course, we can talk about black voters and Hispanic voters and young voters and female voters. Just not white voters because white voters are just voters. And we definitely can't talk about white male voters because that's REALLY racist and divisive.

You gotta post here more often...

wouldn't stand a chance, as he started pulling close to Hillary in Iowa suddenly the corporate media conglomerates started continuously pushing the frame of Hillary's firewall in the South and how black voters wouldn't support Bernie.

That was psychological manipulation as well meant to do nothing but divide the people along racial lines, instead of reporting on the critical issues of the day it was all about the "horse race."

the critical issues and proposed policies of the day, poverty, institutional racism, wealth inequality, climate change, fracking, the human and treasure cost of war, our dismal standing in regards to health care and how much we pay for it, income disparity, the shrinking middle class, money's corruption of our campaign finance system (good luck with that one as they are direct beneficiaries from it) mass incarceration, our failed war on drugs, the consequences of unfettered free trade, our crumbling infrastructure and how we're falling behind the other advanced nations, our education system and how it should be improved etc. etc.

If they covered those issues in depth during campaign season with at least half the effort given to the "horse race" and what superficial externality divides us whether it be race, gender, religion, region, culture, liberal, progressive, moderate, conservative etc. etc. the rest will sort itself out and we would be a much stronger nation as result.

The only thing this type of story does is in giving a heads up to the candidates on how they should tailor their political speech not their heartfelt and studied stance on the issues.

This also only serves to create fault lines in the public by establishing or reinforcing frames, it's just psychological manipulation of the public.

But the corporate media conglomerates are compromised having an inherent conflict of interest via their advertisers, high wage salaried pundits, editors, owners or their corporate conglomerate parents having high financial stakes in issues that's aren't conducive to the public good.

So keeping the people divided is in their narrow minded interests.

published, I'm writing it to everyone else that reads this including them.

Did Uncle Joe's observations anger you?

It used to be a dog-whistle, now its a bull-horn.

That's pretty shocking,I didn't know that.

and a bit disturbing.

He said Trump will need 70% of the white vote to win. For reference Ronald Reagan received 66% of the white vote in his 1984 landslide victory.


The GOP is so f---ed.

They do indeed have a monumental mess on their hands... and its their own fault.

Herr Trump scares the Hell out the latter.

Which now, many now realize that was a mistake.

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Their base shrinks daily, and they try their damnedest to shut out all races and genders except white males, by and large.


Republicans Risk Repeating Mistake on Hispanic Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/us/politics/republicans-risk-repeating-mistake-on-hispanic-vote.html

Three years ago, high-level Republicans declared that after losing the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, the party needed to appeal more to Latinos to win the White House. Immigration was a threshold issue.

Hispanics are the fastest-growing slice of the electorate.

Yet the white vote as a percentage of the total has been in steady decline, from 86 percent in 1984 to 72 percent in 2012. Mr. Romney won 59 percent of the white vote and still lost by four points.

Where both need to be sent back to Mexico and Africa.

The republican party is committing suicide by electing straight up proud racists like Herr Trump and Canadian Cruz.

...and that will be interesting since so many in the GOP are looking for anyone to vote for other than Trump!

I think the problem is this particular group feels the GOP speaks to desires better.

The difference is that white men don't have an advantage over everyone else now.

Because there is no reason why they should. There never was.

If that makes you feel put upon, you should consider why.

So, I, as a white man, am feeling put off that a rich, entitled, politically connected politician doesn't need or want me? Not hardly. Why not? Because she made not need my vote but she'll sure want me to fight her wars. She'll get neither.

bye it means you are going to go away. That is the only way for you to improve a conversation.

is no longer any reason to discuss Democratic issues with him.

I'll be with the Democrats through this election and for the foreseeable future. Sorry to disappoint.

The road to the White House literally has to include minorities and women. Groups that the GOP has lost for the next couple of decades at least. This is why I laugh at DUers who insist Trump will beat Hillary,without that combination,he's doomed.

So tired of the narrative that we are not important or that we are doomed to Donald if we vote for Hillary. I will start just laughing

That op is something special. I wonder why people never feel bad and try to stop themselves from compounding the problem.

Just isn't happening.

white vote ever again. That's why they're tearing themselves to shreds right now.

...and conservative women break from him 10%+.

Disaster in the making for the Republican party, and that's why they're pulling their hair out, they see the writing on the wall.

the Obama coalition, call it what you will...is the majority future in america!

This is the reason the republicans are doomed!

Twice.

I already voted for Hillary on Super Tuesday 2.

Never.

He voted for a Republican for sheriff... I could have a friend who is a Republican but he or she is not getting my vote.

White guy, son of a union machinist, and also never voted R.

And their dislike on not being able to control how others vote. I suspect there are lots who wish none of the "others" would have been given the right to vote. Well, step aside, accept the fact we are here and we vote.

heard this on DU when DU has only been active since 2001. Surely you heard about Travon Martin, it was a hate crime but was not the first. Research some of the white supremacy groups.

Her husband. And if she had left him, she wouldn't be where she is now.

I am sure she would have been very successful no matter what.

-a National Honor Society member
-a Merit Scholar finalist
-a Wellesley grad
-a Yale Law School grad

It's not as if she would have been a maid at the Chicago Grand Hyatt. However, that isn't to suggest all work isn't ennobling.

I don't mind that hill doesn't need me, what I do loathe is the pure racial division it sows "we don't need white males" ok, no issue. You don't need them, but you don't need those that couldn't give a squirt voting against you, this article seems hell bent on ensuring that.

It isn't an article on how the Hillary campaign feels... its the math and the history of the white male voting block. No Democrat has taken that demographic since Lyndon Johnson.

country where no one has Wall Street stock and no one is worried about a $15 minimum wage when they don't have a job. Hillary has been addressing the NEEDS of the rust belt, not the CONDITIONS of the rust belt.

And young people. To turn out in droves. Her performance with 2 of those 3 is not paricularly stellar so far and the turnout has been abysmal across the board.

especially if Trump is the nominee. This could be the highest voter turnout in history.

Outside of your DC bubble.

But she'll need them to fight her wars.

Hillary, this time, may not "need" white men but it's really fucking politically stupid to write off "men" and write off "white men" when nearly 50% of the country is male and 35% of the electorate is still "white men".

Why be so antagonistic to a large voting block. Sounds stupid to me.

Also, Hillary, being the first female nominee may not need white men "this time" but what about when electing a woman in 4 years isn't such a novelty? She may need them more then. Why piss off 30 to 35% of the electorate?

And here's the bigger point, Hillary may not need "white men" at any point but there are a lot of Governorships, Senate Races, and Congress races (not to mention all the state governments) that really, really need white voters, including white males to vote.

Does the Democratic Party really want to become the Anti White Male Party?

do not have undue influence in this election makes you feel that someone is displaying antipathy toward you, that is not something that anyone else can help you with.

PS: Plenty of white men are not pissed off by the statements of these facts.

for Trump, I seriously fucking doubt Clinton would win.

That's would likely be 35,000,000 votes or more (judging from 2012 numbers alone)

You really think Hillary can make up a 70,000,000 vote swing?

I didn't think so.

So the real truth is Hillary Clinton does need a percentage of the white male vote. It may be a small percentage, but it exists. That's reality. Thus to say she "doesn't need white males" is a falsehood.

People like you, I think, really underestimate the white vote in the electorate, to your own peril.

Go look for yourself.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html#!

Clinton because some article pointed out that she doesn't need white men to make her numbers?

You really think most white men find a personal insult in the statement of this fact like you do?

People like you, I think, really overestimate the numbers of people who have the same horrified reactions to these facts as you do.

I won't say "to your own peril" because it really doesn't matter. Don't vote for her if you feel you are being slighted by the fact that she isn't trying to woo white men simply because they are white men.

She'll still win. That's the point.

one Presidency.

elected?

This is a hard fact for the group that has always had the power. The fact is that you no longer do. The fact is that power is now much more widely shared. If you care about winning elections, you need to get used to that fact. Suggestions that white men need to be assuaged show a real disconnect from this reality.

she won't win white men. And she will still win.

now you are saying doesn't need to "win white men". That is a big difference.

You can't just all of a sudden change the words you use because I showed you that you were wrong.

I agree she doesn't need to "win" a majority of white men, however she does "need white men" to some extent.

And yes, the numbers at the link does prove that to you.

white men vote for Hillary. I will concede, if you like, that Hillary will not win if you assume that zero white men vote for her. But that is a ridiculous assumption, so what is the point of that discussion?

The numbers at the link do not separate white men from white women. They are simply results from the 2012 election in a projection tool into which the user can plug any numbers they like. Those numbers do not give any information about how white men's voting patterns affect the election, so they don't prove your point.

As it stands now, the article title (and what it implies) is a falsehood.

The article describes how white men have been moving more to the Republican party ever since Lyndon Johnson and the fact Democrats can still win regardless. We definitely do no want to write off anyone.

I believe it is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. If any demographic group feels like the Dem party is not speaking to their needs, then we need to do something about it.

I took off early yesterday and heard Limbaugh for a few moments during my drive home. He actually made some "partial" sense explaining why white men are angry. His point is that they feel they are neglected and blamed at the same time. Benefits are taken from them and given to people who they feel dont deserve them (immigrants, POC, "lazy" poor, etc..) and when they complain that its not fair they are called racists and sexists and haters.

Of course their concept of fair is off target but I do get how they could they could come to that conclusion given what is fed to them by RW media. I think we do need to do a better of job of explaining the benefits of the programs we as Democrats value and know the tremendous good they do. But also try to make these programs more fair if they are indeed leaving some groups out.

I think if there is any unifying theme why people are angr is that they are working harder for less or can't get a good job in the same way they used to. It makes people angry, resentful, and hopeless.

The RW exploits this by exploiting POC and immigrants, which is dangerous and immoral.

I dont know the solution to that but we definitely need to do something or this issue is going to simply get worse and worse.

disguised as analysis.

... the others.

They don't feel like they are holding on for a last gasp. They feel a sense of community over that of individualism.

demographic change by race in the history of America, the coalition of the ascendant prepares to rescue America. And to America's rescue, the coalition of the ascendant marches.

If you'll notice, a lot of the people who support Bernie Sanders voted for Obama too. And if Hillary goes Rightward, and loses a significant portion of Economic Progressives and Young People you are definitely going to feel it.

Despite the number crunching you guys like to do so much.

left and right. More needlessly divisive bullshut.