White Men Were the Decisive Vote

First Read: “Over the past few cycles, we’ve talked so much about the Latino vote, African Americans, female voters. But the decisive force on Election Night 2014 turned out to be … white men. They made up 37% of the electorate (up from 34% in 2012), and they broke for Republicans 64%-33% (compared with Romney’s 62%-35% margin in ’12). The question for Democrats is if this is simply a midterm phenomenon, or if it’s a longer-term challenge for the Democratic Party — being able to talk to white male voters.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
  • tiredofit

    Well, considering that only 33% of all voters turned out, that makes white males participating in this election about 12% of the electorate (100*.33*.37).

    This also compares a Presidential year with much higher Dem turnout (2012) with a midterm when the Dems often stay home. Assuming more white male Dems stayed home than white male Reps, it makes sense that a few percentage more voted for the GOP.

    Which means there’s been no move at all, and really a two percent move is low. Expect a lot of the white male Dems to come out in two years when Dem participation is up.

    • Hawkeye

      White GOP males also stayed home in terms of absolute numbers but in smaller percentages than with the Democrats. You can bet it was the softest support on both sides that decided not to participate in the end.

    • bentonf

      “White Men Were the Decisive Vote” — the story of virtually the entire body of U.S. electoral and legislative history, captured in a single, six-word headline.

      I wonder if the myriad, hopelessly intractable problems this country continues to dither over might in some way be related to that fact…

      • Zornorph

        Why do you have such a problem with Penis-Americans?

    • Rhysem

      White Males made up 0.49 (M) * 0.75 (W) = 37% (WM) of the electorate. The big numbers not many are talking about are the White Vote and the Gender Vote percentages. The Democrats need to win > 40% of the White vote to be competitive nationally; they only got 38% on Tuesday. And the Democrats need to win > 52% of women voters to be competitive nationally; they only got 51%.

      • Cedric

        In a more diverse presidential electorate like what is expected in 2016…they would need about 38% of national whites. Obama got 39% in 2012 and 43% in 2008. Even in this horrible midterm election, whites still voted 38% for Democrats.

        I think that with time and effort, Democrats can improve this performance to maintain their electoral edge in presidential races. Don’t think for a second that Hillary (and Bill) will not make courting whites especially white women a major part of her campaign should she run.

        The formula for a 2016 Democratic national majority is 30 / 80 / 38. Boost minority turnout to an expected 30%, get Obama’s 80% of that vote, secure at least 38% of whites. So the plan is simple…..work our butts off to get minority voters to show up and target specific subgroups of white voters to get the needed amount. For example, white women in general, college educated white men, working class white men in Midwest states like MI, OH, etc.

  • RadicalCentrist

    The Democrats in many cases chose to tailor their message to women. That was obviously a mistake, since, while control over reproduction is certainly important to both genders, it isn’t the only thing that matters to either.

    • Wynstone

      Oh, yes! It was a mistake! We should concentrate on policies that preserve white male privilege. That’s the real winning strategy!

      • Travis Shaw

        I don’t think that’s what RadicalCentrist was saying. Democrats, especially Udall, aimed his message at women, yet still lost.

        Think about abortion. A majority of Americans are pro-choice, yet it has been a winning issue for the pro-life party. Why? Because there are more single issue voters on the pro-life side than the pro-choice side. Far more pro-choice voters (my wife being one of them) will vote for pro-life candidates that they agree with on other issues. It’s why in most elections (2012 being the lone exception), I’m voting to cancel out her vote.

        • Wynstone

          I can’t think of a “pro-life” candidate I agree with on other issues.

          • Zornorph

            Bob Casey?

          • Wynstone

            While he didn’t immediately come to mind, I suppose he would be one.

        • alansnipes

          Look, many white married women vote republican. If they want to vote for a party that believes in discriminating against them and tries to control their reproductive rights, I don’t care. I am a male. Women can choose not to vote for these morons but don’t. You get what you vote for.

          • koolcrud

            Plenty of women are against abortion on moral grounds and have no interest in themselves, or anyone else, having such a right. You get that right?

          • alansnipes

            It’s not anybody’d business to tell other people whether they should or should not have an abortion. Especially coming from people who say they want the government off their backs. The Supreme Court says people have that right. You get that, right?

          • Inkan1969

            That’s the same as black freemen during the 1800’s not caring about the existence of slavery.

          • Inkan1969

            That’s the same as black freemen during the 1800’s not caring about the existence of slavery.

        • jon_downfromthetrees

          The single issue that motivates single-issue voters is very often a emotive issue that is the sole determinant of their vote. Meaning: They’ll overlook a multitude of sins in a candidate if that candidate supports their position on that one issue. Conversely, if a candidate agrees with them on everything but that one issue, they won’t get the vote.

          Abortion is the most obvious issue, but they’re are any number of alternatives.

          Right-wing candidates are well-schooled in pushing the correct buttons and making the correct dog whistle noises in this kind of tribal identity politics.

          Democrats usually think it’s demeaning to play that game and seem to expect everyone engages in a serious round of thinking about issues before voting. Telling people who don’t want to think about the issues — who just want to elect “one of us” to do the job for them — will get you tagged as a snooty elitist.

      • RadicalCentrist

        No, the winning strategy is to present a vision of a whole set of policies that move men and women forward, not to base your entire campaign around one issue. As for your not agreeing with a “pro-life” candidate on other issues, that’s good for you. But that isn’t a position held by the majority of voters. Do you want to win or not?

        PS-Are you saying you don’t agree with Sen. Casey on any issues? What about the many Catholics who spend most of their life working for the poor?

        • Wynstone

          Are those Catholics candidates? I like Catholics like Biden who are against abortion for religious reasons, but do not try to force their beliefs on others.

          Democrats do have a complete vision. It’s called equality and sometimes that means advocating for women.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Then they need to present the WHOLE vision, Do you think Udall ran a good campaign when even one of his supporters heckled him in public for speaking ONLY about abortion?

          • Wynstone

            If you want to talk about a single candidate, that is a different conversation. You’re moving from the general to the specific.

          • koolcrud

            Clearly the Democrats messaging as a whole failed to win over white men by a massive margin. Why do you think that happened?

          • Wynstone

            What I think happened is a topic even more divisive than abortion and that America, especially white males, refuses to look at objectively.

          • LordDart

            **gasp** Surely you can’t mean….PWB… ????

          • Wynstone

            Personal well being?

          • LordDart

            Presiding While Black…

          • Cedric

            That is part of the problem with some white male voters…particularly those is certain regions.

          • Cedric

            That is part of the problem with some white male voters…particularly those is certain regions.

          • Cedric

            You have made some very good points. I do think a whole view approach is what is going to be needed especially in swing states like CO, IA, etc. I think the approach especially to white men is going to have to be economic (wages, jobs, healthcare, retirement, etc.). That message will have to be tailored more to the specific group (ie…younger white college educated, working class, etc.).

            But the overall pitch is economic. That is how candidates like Gary Peters, Al Franken, Jeff Merkely can win fairly easily in their Senate races in MI, MN and OR. And that is what Obama did in winning OH, MI, WI, PA, etc in his elections.

          • one of his “radical centrist” (right white male) supporters, yes

      • Tipsy McStagger

        Udall’s campaign was about as idiotic as I”ve seen an incumbent senator run. And I am pro choice. “Teh war on wimmenz” meme is played out.

        • FrogLeg

          The war on women argument only works when the other candidate says something really stupid (e.g. Akin). Otherwise, you always have to focus on the economic issues; the social issues will be a red herring.

          If you want to see the way to start down this path, the votes on minimum wage initiatives tell you everything you need to know.

          • Tipsy McStagger

            Even at that, isn’t it more of a case of watching your opponent self destruct than making it a single issue, abortion based campaign?

          • Inkan1969

            So, the War on Women argument only works when someone like Akin foolishly reveals the truth about the War on Women.

          • Tipsy McStagger

            I don’t think there is one, to be honest. There’s a push to limit abortion rights, but that is nothing new. I oppose it, but we really need to dial down the rhetoric. They want to restrict or even ban abortion. They don’t want to turn women into breeding machine slaves a la the Handmaid’s Tale. Many, many women oppose abortion as well. Are they at war with themselves? And how does a campaign like Udall’s appeal to people worried about bread and butter issues like jobs, taxes, healthcare and retirement security.

          • Inkan1969

            So, the War on Women argument only works when someone like Akin foolishly reveals the truth about the War on Women.

    • ne2indy

      I do think there are more issue voters on the Republican side. They get really riled up over abortion rights or gay marriage or anything that might interfere with their male privilege. Males somehow don’t see women’s rights as pertaining to them even though they do. Equal rights is a negative for them even though for married men it would mean more money in their households. I know of a devote Republican woman who is angry claiming “There is no war on women!!” Even Republican women seem to believe it is fine for men to control their lives from reproduction to pay. Plus, of course, you have women who are beyond the reproduction years so to them they could care less about birth control or abortion. By concentrating on the “war on women” we ignore other issues that are important to a wider range of people.

    • fgtayl01

      Republicans ran against Obama. They didn’t campaign FOR anything.
      Democrats ran away from Obama. They didn’t campaign FOR anything either.

      It was a losing formula from the beginning.

    • CB123

      I know you are getting some flak for this comment, but here is my thought, and I think it is in general agreement with what you meant:

      The issue of reproductive rights is very important, and Democrats should always strongly support reproductive rights. This is a given. But as a matter of political strategy, this issue is not of sufficient importance to enough voters that it can, or should, be the centerpiece of a Democratic campaign. I felt that our midterm campaign was too much of a one-note sonata, and this wasn’t the note that was going to save us.

    • I always look for that word “obvious” as a tell for weak, unjustified arguments.

      • RadicalCentrist

        The goal of a campaign is to win. Udall lost and lost badly. Yet you feel his strategy should be above criticism? I’m not even sure he did all that well among women for all his efforts.

        • I’m not sure if that was a question (where you mischaracterized what I feel), but I have certainly never said that anyone is above criticism.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Well, was Udall’s campaign (and those who took a similar tack) smart? Because if it was and he still got creamed in a purple state that re-elected a Dem governor, things are even worse than we thought.

          • Why are you positing straw men and debating them, and why do you need me to do that?

            You said, “The Democrats in many cases chose to tailor their message to women.”

            That part seemed true.

            “That was obviously a mistake” is a statement of opinion, as it reduces the outcome to the one factor you are considering.

            “…since, while control over reproduction is certainly important to both genders, it isn’t the only thing that matters to either.”

            This is another straw man argument ad absurdum, since nobody within 10 miles of here said anything foolish about any one issue being “the only thing that matters” to men or women.

            Also, your word verbiage about genders seems to imply that reproductive rights issues do not have a greater impact on men than women, which I believe is false.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Oh, it’s a statement of opinion? This is a comment board where people state their OPINION on the articles. Your statements are crammed with facts I guess.

            Have a nice evening.

          • you have a well honed knack of changing the subject to avoid defending the indefensible.

            also possibly some trouble with either reading or following a line of reasoning.

          • RadicalCentrist

            That’s your OPINION.

            Have a nice evening. Don’t you have anything better to do?

          • It’s not evening here.

            You see, not everyone is in the exact same context as you, so you have to actually make real connections between thoughts if you want to communicate,

            Or you can keep just posting whatever pops into your head, like a child.

  • Zornorph

    The gender gap has always been a problem for Dems, they just don’t want to admit it. They have a problem with Penis-Americans.

    • Wynstone

      You can’t please all the people all the time.

      • koolcrud

        “Men” are a whole lot of the people to not be pleasing.

        • Cedric

          True. One key to Democrats doing better with men overall is this. First continue to dominate the vote of black men and improve margins with Latino and Asian men. Then they have to work on getting at least around 40% or so of white men.

          How? Well there are different groups of white men and you can tailor the message to them. Working class white men in OH and MI…jobs, economic security. Colleged educated white men in CO or WA….jobs, education, moderate social issue stands. And so forth.

          Democrats will not win the white male vote nationally but they can eat into the GOP margins. That would guarantee victories in the presidential races and key statewide contests.

          • koolcrud

            “Jobs” being the common thread. “Jobs” is how you win elections, not “war on women”.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Job growth has been excellent under Obama, but you wouldn’t have known it from the campaign.

          • Chammy

            Therein lies the problem again – the dems lousy messaging and as much as I love and adore this President, he could have done a better job of tooting his own horn.

          • Wynstone

            It’s been positive, but not robust and largely in the service sector. It would be hard to run on because it is a statistic that is easily picked apart.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Of course, the service sector is now well over 80% of all jobs, and that isn’t going to change. It’s a myth that all service sector jobs are burger flipping. Financial planners and software engineers are service sector too.

          • RadicalCentrist

            Of course, the service sector is now well over 80% of all jobs, and that isn’t going to change. It’s a myth that all service sector jobs are burger flipping. Financial planners and software engineers are service sector too.

          • Chammy

            Are you not commenting anymore at TPM? Good to see you here.

          • embo66

            Interesting. That might work.

            But do you have any theories as to why white men for decades now have strongly preferred GOP candidates? Aside from the usual racial / cultural bogeymen stuff, I mean. Considering that at least some of those wedge issues no longer carry much power (gay marriage, etc.), men must be voting Republican for some other reasons.

            Is it a preference for “manly” up-from-your-bootstraps dreams of economic success? A stronger predilection for war? An urge toward authority, rather than “Liberal” relativism?

            All I know is that many white males these days seem angry and resentful, probably because many are feeling hurt and eclipsed.

          • Unsphexish

            In areas where traditional values (including a strong self-reliance ethos/libertarian/macho “man’s man” streak) might be at risk from more forward-thinking ideas, coupled with the decades-long demonization of the word “liberal”, you have a recipe where for many, the very idea of progress=corruption.

            You see this in part with the ease Republicans have been able to push their ignorant science-denial agenda.

          • Unsphexish

            In areas where traditional values (including a strong self-reliance ethos/libertarian/macho “man’s man” streak) might be at risk from more forward-thinking ideas, coupled with the decades-long demonization of the word “liberal”, you have a recipe where for many, the very idea of progress=corruption.

            You see this in part with the ease Republicans have been able to push their ignorant science-denial agenda.

          • Cedric

            I think your last line hit it in part. In a world where women and minorities are increasingly in position of power….there is bound to be anxiety from the traditional masters of their domain (white men). That is part of why Obama struggles with this group and why Hillary will too.

            Obama is doing things that would help white men lives. He made tax cuts permanent for all Americans, he spent billions on infrastructure, helping the auto industry, helping homeowners, securing the financial system. He passed healthcare to benefit all. He increased student aid and passed student loan reform. He had a education reform program called Race to the Top which impacts all kids in school. Pay equity helps their wives, daughters and mothers. And so much more.

            But for whatever reason, many white men are not seeing this or maybe are blind to it. Obama does worse with white men in the South and more conservative regions….is the reason race? Is it they can’t relate to his views on social issues? I don’t have that answer.

            Smartly Obama and his team accounted for this lack of white male support by trying to diversify the electorate and they acheived great success. When he is not on the ballot then the electorate is not so diverse and Democrats suffer as result…see 2010 and 2014. I think perhaps some white men are a bit resentful that their role as electoral kingmaker has been reduced considerably by the coalition that Obama has assembled.

        • keyne

          “White men” do not equal “men.” Somehow, Penis-Americans of other shades seem to like Democrats just fine.

          • pywaket_1

            And plenty of us white Penis Americans do too.

        • keyne

          “White men” do not equal “men.” Somehow, Penis-Americans of other shades seem to like Democrats just fine.

    • Mitchell LeVett

      I do not think the Democrat’s message is the problem. I think it is similar to the Republican’s problem (in some cases). It is their supporters treatment of those on the other side of the fence.

      When I still was solidly on the right side of the fence in 2008 in college leading up to the election, I cannot tell you how many times someone implied I was sexist or racist based purely on the fact that I leaned Republican. I recall sitting in a Women Studies course and it being a horrible experience based on nothing else than I had planned to vote Republican. The teacher had asked something about who was voting for who, and I was one of the only people that raised his hand for McCain. The two people I had been sitting next and was friendly with just kinda stopped talking to me. One or two others said some really rude shit. I see it on Facebook all the time two from BOTH SIDES. Even on hear you see lines from some people about evil white men, and it is on the top portion getting upvoted a lot of the time.

      Dem empathy in my opinion is one of its strongest selling point. Why not try and showcase it all the time? Instead you have a lot that just try to be more politically correct why they tell you to go to hell. Republicans have more work to do on this point (especially with Blacks), but Dems do not seem to recognize (again to a much lessor viciousness) that they do it.

    • Mitchell LeVett

      I do not think the Democrat’s message is the problem. I think it is similar to the Republican’s problem (in some cases). It is their supporters treatment of those on the other side of the fence.

      When I still was solidly on the right side of the fence in 2008 in college leading up to the election, I cannot tell you how many times someone implied I was sexist or racist based purely on the fact that I leaned Republican. I recall sitting in a Women Studies course and it being a horrible experience based on nothing else than I had planned to vote Republican. The teacher had asked something about who was voting for who, and I was one of the only people that raised his hand for McCain. The two people I had been sitting next and was friendly with just kinda stopped talking to me. One or two others said some really rude shit. I see it on Facebook all the time two from BOTH SIDES. Even on hear you see lines from some people about evil white men, and it is on the top portion getting upvoted a lot of the time.

      Dem empathy in my opinion is one of its strongest selling point. Why not try and showcase it all the time? Instead you have a lot that just try to be more politically correct why they tell you to go to hell. Republicans have more work to do on this point (especially with Blacks), but Dems do not seem to recognize (again to a much lessor viciousness) that they do it.

      • Zornorph

        I will agree with this. While both parties have their rude side, I find the Dems tend to me a lot more sanctimonious and condescending. The disdain they show to rural voters and less educated ones is amazing – and not at all to their benefit. Then they wonder why they don’t get votes from those people – how can they not understand that it’s the Dems who will take care of them?

    • Inkan1969

      You perpetuate the slander that someone has to be a man-hater in order to support equal human rights for women.

      • Zornorph

        Why do you have such a problem with Penis-Americans?

        • Inkan1969

          Don’t give us this BS. You’re the one who seems to have the problem with giving equal rights to women.

    • Inkan1969

      You perpetuate the slander that someone has to be a man-hater in order to support equal human rights for women.

  • ProfessorNewshound

    Not unlike advertisers who write off some consumers because market research suggests they are a declining business, the Dems have made a strategic calculation that the white male vote is shrinking in the long run and thus see little reason to make big efforts to get it. The problem with that calculation is that while it may work at the macro level in the long run, in some places and in some elections it can really come back and bite them.

  • gammyjill

    I’ve been thinking a lot the last couple of days and what I’ve come up with is even worse than what I thought before. Democrats are real fond of saying, “oh, yes, it happens in every midterm (and actually it does, if you look at political history) BUT, just wait til 2016, when Hillary run!. And just look at 2020 when all those ol’ white people who vote Republican are dead!”

    Well, the problem is that we are putting all our eggs in one almost-70 year old basket, in terms of 2016. I really think that Hillary’s support is wide…but essentially shallow. Who else do we have if Hillary dies and/or wises up to the absurdity of running for President? We have no one. And don’t suggest Joe Biden. (Who I like a lot). He’s even older. I have always had the feeling that Hillary either won’t run or will be defeated if she does.

    And we’ve been waiting for the oldfolks to die off fo-evah, and essentially it doesn’t change much. Dems still can’t get their people off their (fat) asses to vote in the mid-terms.

    And what are we giving Dems to vote for? Our NM gubernatorial candidate – Gary King – who was chosen by the voters in a three-way primary – was a completely lame and inept candidate who ran a lameand inept race. I’ll bet the only people who voted for him this week were either relatives or people who held-their-noses when they voted.

    And that leads us to another essential truth about Democrats (God love us, because we are so awful I don’t know who else would!) We do not support a president who accomplished so much his first two years – albeit with a strong Congress – because “Obamacare didn’t go far enough”, he “shoulda done
    this…and he didn’t”, “he disappointed me because he’s not liberal enough”, etc, etc. Now, I will be the first to admit – and to strongly admonish Obama and his administration – that their “messaging” was
    dreadful, from the very start. But we also display an astonishing ignorance when it comes to knowing how the government functions; that Obama couldn’t right all the wrongs that have come before him. BUT, the economy is doing well, unemployment is down, and so are the deficits that the Republicans have been complaining about for years. Why doesn’t EVERYBODY know that? Because the Obama
    administration hasn’t done much to broadcast that fact.

    I with I knew the answer but I think we, as a party, need to do some real soul searching.

    • Cedric

      Some good points. I agree the message of Democrats particularly the White House is weak and so voters have no clue all the great stuff Obama has done. That is a true shame.

      And yes we do have a potential 2016 problem. What if Hillary doesn’t run for whatever reason or what if something happens to make her no longer a viable candidate. Who do we have waiting to take the reins?

      Like you said Biden…heck no. His image is not a winning one and he will be 74 come Election Day. Elizabeth Warren is a possibility. Martin O’Malley would try but he took an enormous hit with the loss of the MD governorship by Anthony Brown. Many blame O’Malley’s policies like his tax increases.

      Andrew Cuomo would likely try but he is despised by many liberals. Gov. Deval Patrick might try but his wife might not by in and Coakley’s loss hurt. Sen. Mark Warner would have been ideal in many ways and still could be…but his near death experience Tuesday hurts.

      So yes we have a problem should Hillary not be in the race.

      • Travis Shaw

        I don’t think Warner’s near miss hurts as much as people today think it does. Much of it can be written off as it being a terrible night for Democrats across the board. As a Democrat, the more concerning aspect is the fact that it seemed like Warner’s team was just coasting. I know that the Republicans are different and their bar for what they consider a “viable” candidate is much lower, but rememeber that Rick Santorum was a viable 2012 candidate despite losing by 20 points six years earlier.

        • Cedric

          Warner used to have this untouchable quality. That has taken a hit but he apparently still won. So in a Hillary less environment he could still present a case as the swing state candidate who won even when things were at their worst for Democrats. As I think more on this…perhaps as the only southern Democratic survivor in this election he might be considered stronger.

    • Chammy

      Soul searching and hire a fucking firm to help us with our messaging. They suck at it an they suck every time and I for one am sick to death of them

    • 2016 is not about Hillary just as 2008 was not about Obama. These are supremely winnable elections for Democrats based on demographics, the electoral college, and backlash against GOP overreach.

  • Chammy

    I still blame the democratic party for abandoning the president, not emphasizing the good they have done to help the people, placing the blame where it belonged (on the republican obstructionist), telling people they used fear to get them to the poles, yada yada yada. I am so sick of the lack of messaging by this party. There is no way the republicans should have taken over the senate. And why did the dems who retired have to retire in the mid-terms? Why didn’t they just retain their seat and then retire after the fucking election!

    • LordDart

      “I still blame the democratic party…”

      What else is new…

  • Ghenghis

    Damn. I thought that I, as an old white male, was irrelevant. I was led to understand that all the stuff created by dead white males was also irrelevant. Guess not after all. We are old white male farts. Hear us roar!

    • keyne

      “Irrelevant”? Is it truly so difficult to acknowledge that your perspective is not the only one relevant in the world, and that women and people of other skin tones have experiences worth acknowledging too?

      (Given your previous rant about “political correctness,” I’m certain of your answer. Must be hard to be you.)

    • keyne

      “Irrelevant”? Is it truly so difficult to acknowledge that your perspective is not the only one relevant in the world, and that women and people of other skin tones have experiences worth acknowledging too?

      (Given your previous rant about “political correctness,” I’m certain of your answer. Must be hard to be you.)

    • wow, old white men sounds really marginalized and oppressed

      • Lumpenproletariat

        Does no one have the courage to speak out on behalf of the most discriminated subgroup of all: Middle class old white cis straight men?

        • Cedric

          Mitt is that you?

    • Lumpenproletariat

      “I was led to understand that all the stuff created by dead white males was also irrelevant.”

      Yes, that’s a thing real people are saying and definitely not an incoherent strawman on your part at all…

  • Perhaps more significantly, the Dems got something like 25% of the white vote in the South. That’s simply catastrophic.

    • Gumby

      The Democratic white vote is the South is dying out. John Kerry won the 65+ white vote in Arkansas. The problem with that is those voters are now 75+.

    • Gumby

      The Democratic white vote is the South is dying out. John Kerry won the 65+ white vote in Arkansas. The problem with that is those voters are now 75+.

    • Gumby

      The Democratic white vote is the South is dying out. John Kerry won the 65+ white vote in Arkansas. The problem with that is those voters are now 75+.

    • Gumby

      The Democratic white vote is the South is dying out. John Kerry won the 65+ white vote in Arkansas. The problem with that is those voters are now 75+.

      • humanoidpanda

        I really don’t think that’s a problem that can be resolved as long as the Dems are a multiracial coalition that , by and large, cares about the environment. Sometimes, you just have to take it on the chin, and write off an entire area of the country as not worth pursuing. The GOP was the dominant party in the US for 70 years without getting a single vote in the South (1860-1932), and the Demstoday are in a better position, as they can win NC, VA, and FL, and in the medium term, GA.

      • humanoidpanda

        I really don’t think that’s a problem that can be resolved as long as the Dems are a multiracial coalition that , by and large, cares about the environment. Sometimes, you just have to take it on the chin, and write off an entire area of the country as not worth pursuing. The GOP was the dominant party in the US for 70 years without getting a single vote in the South (1860-1932), and the Demstoday are in a better position, as they can win NC, VA, and FL, and in the medium term, GA.

        • This policy our friend advances is akin to writing off an entire section of the country, which we are loth to do. And such a coalition will simply not work in the South without enormous voter turnout and some support among sensible whites. There must be SOME of them left.

          • Cedric

            I think Democrats have found some fertile ground with a fair number of white voters in what I call “New South” states with lots of electoral votes….VA, NC, FL and hopefully soon GA. In those states you have growing number of white transplants from other regions that are not beholden to the South’s racial politics and a growing minority vote base. I think these are where Democrats have to focus their main efforts in the region.

            Consider that Democrats ran a fairly liberal, young, inexperienced, black (biracial) male with a Muslin Sounding name born in “exotic” Hawaii, associated with Big City Chicago…..yet they won FL and VA twice while winning NC once and coming very close there in 2012. That shows me that these states are indeed in play for future Democrats candidates.

            Here are some stats on these states:

            State – Racial Composition – Obama ’08 and ’12

            FL – 56% W, 24% L, 17% B, 3% A – 51% / 50%
            VA – 64% W, 20% B, 9% L, 6% A – 51% / 51%
            NC – 64% W, 22% B, 9% L, 3% A – 50% / 48%
            GA – 55% W, 31% B, 9% L, 4% A – 47% / 46%

            I think a broadly popular candidate like say Hillary Clinton could make these states ever more competitive with her potential appeal to white women in the region.

          • There is that!

          • who is we?

          • Our natural modesty inhibits us from speaking in the first person.

      • What our friend overlooks is that 55-year-old people have a distressing habit of becoming 65. So, unless the Dems can attract older voters, they will continue to be in deep doo doo.

      • What our friend overlooks is that 55-year-old people have a distressing habit of becoming 65. So, unless the Dems can attract older voters, they will continue to be in deep doo doo.

  • genexpatriot

    Challenge for the Democratic party to speak to white male voters? You bet.

    My mother is a retired school teacher who was president of the local teacher’s union and my father was a meat cutter at a local small town grocery store. They were, and still are, quintessential Roosevelt raised Democrats.

    I obviously had an upbringing based on this foundation, but as I have grown in adulthood and now middle age, I have found anytime I have any degree of difference of opinion in the standard Democratic platform, it is labeled as racist, bigoted, and/or homophobic.

    I know where I come from. I know what experience formed my opinions on certain issues. My viewpoints on political issues are not arrived at from a foundation of dislike for those who are not like me. The problem is that the Democratic party leadership has communicated that if I don’t agree with their platform, that I am sub-human and unwelcome. A huge percentage of white male voters have arrived at the same conclusion.

    The calculation/hope has been that over time, the white male voter will not be needed as part of a winning coalition and I am resigned to the fact that I am not only unwelcome in today’s Democratic party, but also viewed as THE problem with the country as a whole, in spite of the fact that I work for a company that manufacturers in an economically depressed region of the country (with over 40% of our 300 plus employees being minorities), pay all my taxes on time, send my children to public schools, and regularly give 10% plus of our income to charity.

    I didn’t leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party told me to get the hell out and quickly close the door behind me.

    Party leadership just needs to understand that until they fully replace voters like me with enough alternative votes, they will periodically have a few elections like this past one, in which the evil white man will have some degree of influence on the election outcome. This is just temporary and Democrats just need to be patient, albeit it makes the time until white male voters are a significantly lower percentage of the voting population a challenging transitional phase (i.e. the elections this past Tuesday).

    • jk13

      “that if I don’t agree with their platform, that I am sub-human and unwelcome.”

      Could you elaborate which issues you are talking about?

      • genexpatriot

        Immigration
        Tax policy
        Role of federal government
        Energy policy

        • RadicalCentrist

          I’m very curious-what would a racist, homophobic, bigoted energy policy look like? Immigration policy has ALWAYS been a matter of racial/ethnic differences, but energy policy?

          • genexpatriot

            The notion that if you are not fully pro-green energy, pro-carbon taxes, anti-coal, anti-fracking, that you are a tool of white corporatists and do not care about the impact on the people of earth.

          • RadicalCentrist

            “The people of the earth” includes white people, does it not? Are you saying white people don’t suffer from environmental degradation? Most environmentalists in the US are white, anyway. And Republicans used to be the biggest pro-environment party-TR, Nelson Rockefeller, even Nixon, who started the EPA. Suddenly, caring about the environment became Communist, speaking of which, the Republicans today seem to take their model from the Chinese Communists and Putin when it comes to the environment.

            But now that I have you here, let me ask about carbon taxes. Why would you oppose a revenue-neutral carbon tax with the proceeds rebated as an income tax credit? We ought to tax things we want less of (burning fossil fuels inefficiently) and tax things we want (jobs) less, no?

        • Cedric

          Genexpatriot,

          In the Democratic party you can have different views on these issues. There are many conservative folks who call themselves Democrats and there were just a short time back many political officials that were Democrats that held more conservative views.

          We didn’t kick them out. But just as the GOP expresses their overall views on many issues…Democrats will also. Democrats are a party that supports complete immigration reform not just border control. We are a party that favor the rights of women to control their own lives and bodies. We are a party that cares for the unfortunate and thinks the government has a role to play in doing that. We are a party the doesn’t care if you are white, black, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, disabled, etc….we welcome you and fight discrimination against you.

          Nothing in what I just stated is anti-white man. Being compassionate and fair with mostly Latino and Asian illegal immigrants is not anti-white man unless that said man doesn’t like those folk. Being for equal pay and pro-choice is not about white men….its about empowering a women over her own life. There are tons of poor white men…what we stand for helps them too.

          Democrats are inclusive of all including conservative white men. Maybe we need to make that more apparent. When we fight for a living wage, union rights, paid leave, a fair tax system, education reform, student loan reform….we are fighting for all Americans including white men.

      • genexpatriot

        Immigration
        Tax policy
        Role of federal government
        Energy policy

    • Wynstone

      I challenge you to cite any of the Democratic leadership using the adjective “sub-human” or any synonym of that nature. That is libelous.

      • genexpatriot
        • Wynstone

          You did find some citations so kudos on that. They are disparate and rare so you taking them personally is a bit strange, but I stand corrected. I’m disappointed you disagree with the Violence Against Women Act.

          • genexpatriot

            What?

            Yeah, that’s right. I am all for violence against women.

            Your describing it as strange of me to cite such references, is a great example of what I am talking about.

            Can always count on you.

          • Wynstone

            I thought these were examples of the policies you disagree with. Biden used “neanderthal” to describe those opposing VAWA. You said it was these examples that made you leave the Democrats. So you don’t oppose VAWA? I was talking about the act. That you distort that to mean I’m slamming you as “for violence against women” is also disappointing.

            I could just as easily say I’m not a republican because they call me an evil, baby-killing communist, but I don’t take the hyperbole personally. I think it is strange that you do. I didn’t say citing the references was strange as I challenged you to do so.

          • terjeanderson

            So you support the Violence Against Women Act? Because Biden was talking about the Republicans who oppose it – not all Republicans.

            In my book, anyone who opposed reauthorizing such a basic piece of legislation deserves the label “Neanderthal”.

            But if you want to defend them, that’s your right. Just don’t get upset that people make judgements about your values when you do that.

          • nycdem

            Sorry Terje – off-topic – I assume you’ve noticed increase in trolls? That MatmanJohn ( sp?) has caught my attention today. Nothing abusive – except about the President of course – but repetitive taking-over-threads Fox News talking points posts .

            Sorry to bother you

          • terjeanderson

            I’m just back tonight after being away for a couple of days (was working on a campaign, took Wednesday off to sleep late and relax, and just drove home today). I haven’t totally caught up with all the recent posts.

            Matmanjon has been here on and off for months. I don’t think he meets most definitions of “troll” — he’s just a right wing ideologue (with a hatred of Obama) who seems to enjoy arguing with others about it. That’s what happens on political websites.

            Some of the others just seem to be right wingers who want to gloat post-election. Annoying, but I doubt they’ll stick around very long. Some of the insult spewing comments have been deleted, but otherwise, that’s their right.

            (Really trollish behaviour will be either deleted or result in banning, but conservatives and Republicans are just as welcome to come here and argue their viewpoint as are progressives and Democrats. You can flag any comments you think are out of bounds — but it really is only hate speech, spamming, insult spewing, and similar behaviour that is problematic. The other stuff is just normal run of the mill free speech.)

            Like I said, I doubt it will last very long.

          • nycdem

            Thank you. I haven’t been around much either until past week , so was startled by amount of such posts, altho agree of course re: dialogue . Again, sorry to bother & thank you for responding. All the best…

    • LordDart

      “I have found anytime I have any degree of difference of opinion in the standard Democratic platform, it is labeled as racist, bigoted, and/or homophobic.”

      Well, how about you share a few with us and let’s see? After all, is it even remotely…just remotely…possible that maybe your “difference” is possibly racist, bigoted, and/or homophobic? I’m not saying it is. But unless you look at what one believes, saying you have a “degree of difference of opinion” isn’t much to make a judgment on.

      For example, I’m gay. From time to time, I’ve called friends of mine “fags” in conversation. It has offended some of them, and I especially make it a point to not to use it with them. Some have educated me on why I shouldn’t use it at all and I understand their point. Which doesn’t stop me from saying it from time to time…but at least I am aware of their position and don’t do it in their presence. Does that mean I don’t feel welcomed in my group of friends because I know they strongly disapprove of my use of that term? Nope. But I am sensitive to the fact that it bothers them. In other words, it’s a two way street…I understand their position and try to accommodate them, and vice versa. Are we both happy having to do that? Nope. But that is life.

      It’s been my experience that people who have attitudes that were not considered bigoted at some time in their life but are today, have a hard time understanding why their attitudes are so judged. As I said, I understand why my friends judge me that way and I’m not offended. Because I understand where their position is coming from. But if I just blew them off with a “that’s how I was brought up, I’ll do what I want, and you shouldn’t judge me”, that doesn’t exactly bring about harmonious relations. Of course, trying to accommodate others feelings on an issue is now labeled “PC”.

    • There is much in what our friend says.

    • There is much in what our friend says.

    • Cedric

      Although I can appreciate your comments….I have to ask you this? Does the fact that Democrats are a party that is a multi-racial coalition and not just dominated by white men….play into why you think white men are turning their backs on Democrats for the most part?

      When Obama won his 51% in 2012 his vote total broke down like this:

      32% White Women
      24% White Men
      23% Blacks (Men and Women)
      14% Latinos (Men and Women)
      7% Asian (Men and Women)

      That means whites are still the biggest part of a winning coalition. I wonder though if that fact is lost on many white voters who when they look at the TV…they see mostly whites representing the GOP while Democrats have many faces many times female many times of color. Everyone wants to feel like they are represented so maybe white men are feeling like they are valued as parts of the Democratic coalition (they are). Or alternately maybe they are threatened by the fact that other groups are represented and have real say and power.

    • terjeanderson

      Yeah, the Democratic Party told white men “to get the hell out and quickly close the door behind” them.

      Harry Reid. Joe Biden. Bill Clinton. Chuck Schumer. Pat Leahy. Mark Warner. Chris Murphy. Richard Blumenthal. Mark Pryor. Mark Begich. Al Franken. Ben Cardin. Bob Casey. Sherrod Brown. Joe Donnelly. Jack Reed. Sheldon Whitehouse. Joe Manchin. Gary Peters. Mark Udall. Tom Udall. Ron Wyden. Michael Bennet.Tom Harkin. Martin Heinrich. Tom Carper. Jeff Merkley. Ed Markey. Tim Kaine. Dick Durbin. Bill Nelson. Tim Johnson. Carl Levin. Jon Tester. Chris Coons. Brian Schatz. Tom Wolf. Peter Shumlin. Dan Malloy. Andrew Cuomo. Martin O’Malley. Terry McAuliffe. Steve Beshear. Pat Quinn. Mark Dayton. Jerry Brown. John Hickenlooper. Mike Beebe. Jack Markell. Jay Nixon. Steve Bullock. John Kitzhaber. Jay Inslee. To say nothing of Steney Hoyer and 87 white male Democratic US House members.

      The Democratic Party hasn’t been very successful at purging all those “evil white men”, have they?

      The problem isn’t that the Democratic Party is neglecting white men — the problem is that too many white men (like you) treat it as some kind of zero sum game, and don’t seem to be able to handle the fact that Democrats are committed to leadership and policies that respond to the needs of all Americans, not just white straight Christian men. The fact that you are threatened by a political party that is inclusive – in leadership and policy – is a comment on you, not the party.

      • Lumpenproletariat

        He lets on more than he knows in his comments.

        What I’m wondering is how long, exactly, has he been milking this “I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me” garbage? From his positions (at least, the ones he’s willing to openly admit to) he doesn’t exactly seem like the type that would have been willing to vote Democratic at any point in the past five decades or so.

        I don’t know, maybe he’s just a Reagan Democrat who, like Reagan, didn’t know when the country had a “racial problem.”

    • Lumpenproletariat

      By any chance did the “Democratic party tell you to get the hell out” around, say, 1964?

  • DetroitTechnoFan

    <—I'm happy to say that this 32 year old WHITE MAN has voted in every election and NEVER voted for a Republican!

    • 50 year old white man and same, although I have voted for some non-Democrats and did like Lowell Weicker and a few Republicans back before they went entirely off the deep end.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Long story short, I don’t pay attention to this stuff and I’m not a democrat because I love politics or I want to. I pay attention and vote Dem because knowing the crap that goes on in the legislatures DOES affect our collective everyday lives and they’re the only ones who are doing anything positive for anybody who isn’t a millionaire.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Long story short, I don’t pay attention to this stuff and I’m not a democrat because I love politics or I want to. I pay attention and vote Dem because knowing the crap that goes on in the legislatures DOES affect our collective everyday lives and they’re the only ones who are doing anything positive for anybody who isn’t a millionaire.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Long story short, I don’t pay attention to this stuff and I’m not a democrat because I love politics or I want to. I pay attention and vote Dem because knowing the crap that goes on in the legislatures DOES affect our collective everyday lives and they’re the only ones who are doing anything positive for anybody who isn’t a millionaire.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Long story short, I don’t pay attention to this stuff and I’m not a democrat because I love politics or I want to. I pay attention and vote Dem because knowing the crap that goes on in the legislatures DOES affect our collective everyday lives and they’re the only ones who are doing anything positive for anybody who isn’t a millionaire.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Long story short, I don’t pay attention to this stuff and I’m not a democrat because I love politics or I want to. I pay attention and vote Dem because knowing the crap that goes on in the legislatures DOES affect our collective everyday lives and they’re the only ones who are doing anything positive for anybody who isn’t a millionaire.

  • oldhandatthis

    The problem is not that white male voters turned out in higher numbers. The problem is too many Democrats simple did not turnout. Oh, one other thing Democrats need to work on is winning over a larger percent of white male voters, which would be very bad news for the GOP.

  • Douglass Parker

    It’s more of a class issue than a gender issue. Republicans have convinced whites, particularly in the South, to identify their interests with those of the wealthy. Why would working class people support the elimination of the estate tax? It is only paid by the wealthiest. Why would working class people be hostile to unions, when unions raise the standard of living for everyday people? The Republicans have done a great job of convincing whites to blame all their problems on illegal immigrants and welfare cheats. It’s classic divide and conquer strategy.

  • fgtayl01

    The Civil War never really ended. When the South surrendered it just became another Cold War as antagonistic in it’s own way as the Cold War with the Soviet Union was.

  • delnurse

    I don’t know about anybody else but this white male doesn’t vote for republicans, and I am teaching my son the same thing. I vote in every election.

    • nycdem

      I am related to a number of white men, and they certainly don’t vote for Republicans. And while the Democratic caucus is far more diverse than the Republican, most Democratic Senators and Representatives are also white men.

  • Snick1946

    In my experience the odds are great that white men over 45 or so almost will always vote Republican- even if they tell their wives differently. All you have to do is listen to them talk when their women aren’t around.

  • DemNuts

    Yes, the dems make it hard for white males to support them. I’m a racist, bigoted, homophobe if I don’t support them for ANY reason. There supposed big tent is only open for those that support all their positions. Make no mistake, they have zero tolerance for opposition.

    Look at how the dems treat black republicans, look at what prominent dems have said about Scott and Love. It is totally hypocritical but yet post for the course. Instead of saying it’s great that minorities are making headway in the GOP, they bash minorities who don’t agree with them. Even the NAACP bashed them, you’d think if they really were a group that supports their race as opposed to just dems they’d be thrilled. Not so, though.

    As dems like to say, why vote against your best interest and dems don’t have the white males best interest in mind, in fact the only interest they have is their own party’s interest. Stay in power at all cost. The only people better off since Obama took office are the LGBT community. Everyone else is the same our worse.

    • Wynstone

      White males are not treated badly by Democrats. Zero tolerance? As somebody pointed out to me yesterday, Bob Casey is pro-life, yet nobody is trying to kick him out of the party. Democrats have just made clear for a society to be equal, the white male can’t always be top priority.

    • Inkan1969

      What exactly HAVE they said about Scott and Love? And how the heck do they not have the best interests of white males in mind? What on Earth could correspond to “best interests” in a mind as twisted as yours?