General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Does the Democratic Party Get Back Middle to Lower Class Whites?
I think it is absolutely fabulous that the trends look very good for the Democratic Party with regard to latinos. However, the only thing keeping this a ball game for republicans is that they are able to manipulate, for whatever reason, white men into voting for them.
Let's face it, the Republican Party should have no voters except for the top 1%. Personally, as the hangover from the great victory wears off, I want to think about ways we can finish off the Republican Party in 2014. One of those ways would be to get back their key constituency.
Any ideas how the democrats attract lower to middle income white men???
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)because no one wants to vote for a party which treats them with absolute contempt -- and on the basis of a stereotype, to boot.
i call it hate speech, no less than similar remarks about women.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)way to persuade these Limbaugh-listeners, besides abandoning Democratic principles?
We're already going around saying "We hunt, TOO!", e.g.
But if you think the little bit I wrote is "hate speech" (and I fail to see any stereotype within my sentence), well, I am not in your easily-offended universe.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)nothing to be done for you.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Yeah, I'm bigoted, I and my entire white family hate whites.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)do you think every white male answers ryan's call?
but democratic stereotyping of all white males as racist sexist pigs sure turns some men off the party. which i assume is what it's intended to do.
really, just leave me alone.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those working class white male did, in fact, vote for romney based on either: their love of guns (and mistaken fear that President Obama would take them, this time for sure); or based on Taxes (under the mistaken notion that tax cuts for the wealthy would somehow benefit them, this term for sure); or based on race.
FWIW ... My suggestion was going to be: "Ask them really, really nicely to please turn off rightwing radio/tv."
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I know plenty of white men who have been told this. They leave the interview believing that some less qualified person got the job. Of course, nobody is going to hire someone who is unqualified for a job. Period. Instead those words mean:
1. I am making up an excuse for not hiring you, or
2. I would hire you instead of a minority, not because you are so much better, but because you are White. Unfortunately, I have already hired so many White people that I might take some heat if I don't get a little color in this place. So I will hire this other guy who is qualified, but whom I'd rather not hire because he's a {insert racial insult here}.
It's all about forcing them to give qualified minorities an equal chance. Not about giving good jobs to unqualified minorities. But the guy not getting the job feels better about himself convinced he was the superior job candidate and just got screwed. It also lets him put the blame on somebody else instead of examining his own faults. For an owner to feel the need to bring in non-White guys, he must already be really top heavy in White, male employees. So the guy mostly does hire White men, but you didn't make the cut.
Harsh, but them's the facts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You know plenty of white men who have told you they have been told that.
Bake
(21,977 posts)So the point is that we've got to communicate to them two things (at least two things): 1. The GOP doesn't give a crap about their interests.
2. We Democrats DO represent their interests - working people, middle class, etc.
In other words, we've got to convince them it's OKAY TO BE A DEMOCRAT!
How do we do that? I don't know. I thought that's what this thread was for, brainstorming. Not making condescending remarks about an entire group of people, which you have now done twice in two posts.
Bake
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, if you really want to get the men put it into dollars and cents. There are charts out there on how Democrats are better for the economy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)There is nothing Democrats can do to win them back.
They are dillusional and cannot be talked to.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I think for the most part, they are blinded by social issues. And I think that even though they aren't explicit white supremacists, some may have a belief that there is a group of white men looking out for them specifically.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)These are the delusional people that believe they're poor because its the fault of other races.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)gration of 35%+ of the population.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And that by living on low wages with no benefits and remaining near the poverty level, they compete well with workers in the 3rd world, and that is what makes America exceptional.
That's what the GOP's been telling them and it seems to work.
RandySF
(58,884 posts)She can hold the coalition and add middle and working class whites.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)Have met more than one rabid white ringer who claimed to support Hillary but had visceral hate for Obama (when in reality Hillary is probably more liberal than Obama lol).
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Saying Hillary is more liberal than Obama is like saying 4800 is closer to 0 than 4850 on a 10000-point scale. Neither is terribly liberal, they're both left-centrists who hold a few moderate-left positions.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)They didn't support Obama because he is.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You'll upset those on this board that wish to believe that pointing out that some white males voted against President Obama (and other Democratic candidates) on the basis of race. That's down right racist stereotyping, on the left!
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Hence the people, IMO, who were suddenly compelled to switch parties or - after a lifetime of voting Democratic - could not bring themselves to do so only when POTUS got the nomination in 2008. Modern-day Dixiecrats.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)It is the 21st century. They can either attach their cars to this rolling train or be left on the side rails. Their choice.
If they are stupid enough to allow themselves to be be sidelined and left behind that is their problem.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)but I personally don't think that's the right way to approach it...
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)This is the same thing as some male arguing against equal rights for women or some white person arguing for segregation in the 21st. They are irrelevant relics from another time. I won't have a discussion with them.
They can self-educate and get on board or get left behind. I have zero patience for them.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
aletier_v
(1,773 posts)
billh58
(6,635 posts)permanent cures for racism, misogyny, and religious bigotry. Those are the common traits of male Republicans.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)I think there are genuinely a lot of uneducated white males in the inner ring suburbs of Cleveland who aren't racist bigots but who have been duped into thinking that the Republican party is for them and that the Democratic party just takes their money and gives it to poor minorities who don't work and blah blah....Obviously that is a load of crap...a huge load of crap...and it's because of that stuff that a good pro-labor Congresswoman like Betty Sutton didn't get re-elected. And so, I think there needs to be a strategy in the democratic party to win back this demographic from the snake oil lies of Republicans.
billh58
(6,635 posts)"lot of uneducated white males in the inner ring suburbs of Cleveland who aren't racist bigots" be duped into voting for educated white racist bigots in the first place? It appears that you are implying that one must be "educated" in order to think for one's self, or vote for Democrats.
In order to actually believe "the snake oil lies of Republicans," these inner ring suburban white males must first be inclined to believe that minorities are depriving them of (fill in the blank) which makes them lean toward racism in the first place. It is not Republican lies which converted them to racism and bigotry -- it is their culture and history which they inherited at birth.
Not recognizing that it is actually the Republicans (and not Democrats) who are shipping their jobs overseas, and causing their mortgages to be upside down is not a result of a lack of education -- it is a result of aligning with those who use the existing ingrained hatred and racism of this demographic to incite them to vote against their own best interests.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)wedge issues (racism, misogyny, homophobia, reproductive choice, ad infinitum), Dems at that level should repeat the following mantra:
"1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth and 10% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. Are you in the top 10%? If not, you should be voting Dem because we represent the bottom 90%."
LeftInTX
(25,364 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)k2qb3
(374 posts)Drop the gun control stuff, particularly efforts to ban certain features, if you're not actually willing to go all the way and fight a war to ban them outright.
I really think the AWB is the rape exemption to abortion of the Democratic party, it sounds moderate and reasonable to people who don't really understand the issue very well, but it isn't workable, and can't be effective unless it goes to lengths most people would reject.(not to mention that keeping the issue alive is the biggest demand driver for assault weapons)
For a large number of people, particularly working class white men, perceived Democratic hostility to the 2nd amendment is determinative, even if they aren't single-issue voters.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)and why people want automatic weapons. To give some reference, I don't see a reason for an automatic weapon unless a person is a soldier in the military. But, I am realistic, some people that are every day people want to shoot automatic weapons, so banning those types of guns create a political problem. I challenge anyone that like owning an automatic weapon to explain to me where they can shoot those weapons, other than a gun range or in deep unpopulated woods. Even in the woods, if a bullet travel and strike a person or home, the shooter will be arrested and likely convicted if caught.
To me the solution is to regulate where automatic weapons can be used and make those locations available to people that want to shoot automatic weapons. The federal government and states can set up shooting ranges and have them run by professional weapons experts as pseudo private entities, the ranges can have experts or shooting enthusiasts available to work with people that want help. People like me will avoid the installations, I don't own a gun and at the moment see no need for a gun. People that love shooting automatic weapons can patronize the afore mentioned gun ranges and shoot as long as they want to. People that like shooting automatic weapons but don't want to own one, can get maintained guns at the range to shoot.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)have been effectively banned for almost 50 years (or longer). They cannot make any new ones, and the few that exist cost 10,000+. Finally, anyone who buys one must get a firearms license from the ATF which includes a full background check on the level of background checks for security clearance.
The problem was the "assault weapons ban" which bans weapons that look like automatic weapons and/or have things like bayonets. These guns are no different though in function than a hunting rifle -- and that's why a lot of rural whites especially see it as a major 2nd amendment issue.
k2qb3
(374 posts)I believe an AWB is really bad policy for a number of reasons.
The point though, is that if the Dems are going to screw this thing up, this is how they're going to do it. I think President Obama is way too smart to do that, but not everybody in the party is smart enough not to bring it up.
And if the party publicly dropped the issue, they'd be so strong they could get a lot of more important things done.
Spike89
(1,569 posts)We (liberals) ARE the good guys, and we use our superior education, intelligence, and enlightened outlook to come up with policies and programs that benefit the poor and middle classes. We also can't help but snark and patronize those same populations (who, in our defense are pretty sensitive about their lack of education, intelligence, and exposure to enlightened thought). I'm being a tad snarky right here, but I'm also serious. You can't really laugh at the poor slob with the mullet and the "Morans!" sign, then profess to be mystified when he "votes against his best interests". He isn't. He's voting against the people who ridicule him and make him feel inferior. The republicans may be screwing him, but they make him feel good while they do it.
Just a note on the gun issue...guns are extremely loaded (sorry) emotionally, but with totally different connotations for the two "sides" in the gun debates. In small town/rural and suburban America, guns have been given to boys as a coming of age ritual for generations and generations. Generally, getting that first gun comes with praise for being responsible enough and mature enough to "be a man"--that is powerful stuff for a 12-13 year old boy. To these boys, guns are tools, symbols, and connections to their fathers and grandfathers, really their entire way of life.
In an urban setting (and on TV and movies) guns are overwhelmingly connected quite viscerally to violence and crime. You need a gun to commit a crime, or you need a gun to defend yourself from crime.
Of course there are yahoos in the country who shoot up roadsigns, play militia, or just go gun crazy. Not everyone in the city with guns is dirty Harry either. This is a simplified look, but if you don't share the same emotional connections, it is really hard to even understand each other.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)views those people with disdain, stereotyping them as stupid racists, even though they're over 1/3 of the electorate and such stereotypes are clearly as bigoted as similar ones from racists.
kind of disgusting. kind of odd, actually, for a party which says it's a "big tent," able to tolerate dinos and the like.
really odd, almost like the dems & pubs made a deal to divide up the electorate. and have their respective attack dogs scripted to keep it divided.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)kinda...
Stinky The Clown
(67,807 posts)The ones that can accept that will stay or become our side. Those who cannot, will not.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)middle class life and end up owning lots of material assets. A few people like that make it today, but the majority get ground to mincemeat in the new economy. The people that get hammered are angry, but the point their anger at others instead of themselves. The result is that those angry people won't work to improve their job skills or take chances on starting a business, so they fester.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)But they do have incorrect views about who make up the democratic party. They see the majority of the democratic party as lazy non achievers. I have dealt with those people. I am sad to say, we will never get them back, they are too fucked up. We simply must out register and out vote them in national, state and local elections until they die off. There is some hope for their children, who are growing up with a worldview different from their parents.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts).....
The study finds, however, that a few of our political stereotypes are true: They are more likely than college-educated whites to say the government does too much for minorities and that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks, although, again, if you take out the South, the percentages drop. They are more likely than white college-educated voters to blame illegal immigration for their economic problems. They oppose same-sex marriage, but not overwhelmingly, 50 to 43 percent, and there again, there are huge differences by region, religion age and gender: Women, non-Southerners, Catholics and younger white working-class people favor same-sex marriage, while older Southern male Protestants oppose it.
Seven-in-ten (70 percent) white working-class Americans believe the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy, and a majority (53 percent) say that one of the biggest problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance in life. Over 6-in-10 (62 percent) white working-class Americans favor raising the tax rate on Americans with household incomes of over $1 million per year.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/beyond_guns_and_god/
We are competitive for the votes of these people outside of the South and they largely agree with Democratic message
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)But, to me there's no reason why we couldn't or shouldn't have as large of a lead with them as other demographics. I'm still lamenting Betty Sutton's loss as I worked for her campaign and it was this demographic that cost us. I agree that maybe I'm exaggerating in saying "they don't vote for us" etc. but we can do better is what I'm saying.
hockeynut57
(230 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)
Withywindle
(9,988 posts)Obama lost Nebraska and Montana by a MUCH greater margin then, say, North Carolina.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The first thing to do is leave gun control alone. Prosecute people who commit gun crimes, but otherwise leave things as they are.
The next thing they can do is make sure that Congress passes solid farm legislation -- solid defined as favoring small and mid-sized family farms over "Agriculture Incorporated" mega-farms.
Whenever practical, leave local issues to local governments. I'm not saying the local governments should be allowed to ignore federal laws, mind you, but give them some flexibility in how they respond to and comply with federal requirements.
Just a few random thoughts.
dog_lovin_dem
(309 posts)democratic is middle to lower class and white. Many of them are male. The common thread running through these voters is that they are not Fox watchers, nor do they listen to talk radio.
If we could find some way to rid ourselves of these types of media, we'd have the solution to our problem.
Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)Some kind of fairness doctrine...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2012 Obama-39%
2008 Obama-43%
2004 Kerry-41%
2000- Gore-42%
1996 Clinton-43%
1992 Clinton-39%
1988 Dukakis-40%
1984 Mondale-35%
1976 Carter-47%
1972 McGovern-31%
The untold truth behind the GOP election meltdown
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021796498
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)believe belongs to them and giving it to blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, women or LGBT.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)For instance, the auto-bailout shows that these folks actually support activist big government industrial policy...should show that's the type of "big government" we support....that will support full employment, etc.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)Both of those would be a good start.
Hekate
Withywindle
(9,988 posts)and yet, Webb retired (Thankfully, Kaine is filling his shoes, not "Macaca"
.
marmar
(77,081 posts)....... This election proved that Democrats can win without focusing on them, and the diversification of America will be more pronounced with each election. If the Bush years couldn't help people see the light, I don't know what will.
LakeErieLiberal
(37 posts)to try to craft a message in a way that builds rapport...you know, different strokes for different folks? We're the big tent party after all...
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)women's health?
Do they hate Obamacare?
Do they hate the idea of higher taxes on the rich? Do they hate immigrants, black Americans, those whom Romney and Ryan call "gift recipients" and "urban"?
Do they think we should be fighting in Iraq? Iran? Syria? VietNam still?
Just what Democratic plan, promise, proposal, or program do you think white American men do not care for?
Which do you think the Democratic Party ought to compromise on, to "woo" and "lure" these men?
These voters chose the bigots, the liars, the greed-heads, Romney-Ryan.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The problem with that group is that as a group, working class white men have barriers that make them difficult to bring over to work with us. The majority of that group work hard and are responsible. The problem is that they have been led to believe that no one else works hard. They don't like people that are better educated and better off, but for some treason they turn their anger against people that are struggling.
What we should continue to do is attract educated Whites, male and female, that group will make up the largest amount of democratic party support for a long time. Our party should attract Asians, an up and coming highly educated group that in addition, has many economic strata that range from rich to poor. Our party should attract Hispanics, a diverse group that range from wealthy people to working people. Our party should attract Blacks, also a diverse group of many economic strata that range from rich to poor. By expanding that coalition, we will continue to win elections and make america a more inclusive, even more prosperous country.
pepperbear
(5,648 posts)BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)for starters.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)not another Third Way fake liberal who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. I mean...did FDR have any problem getting working-class white males to support him?
pampango
(24,692 posts)one? I suppose we Democrats are lucky that minorities and women cannot tell a fake from a real progressive.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)My point was that you appeal to white male blue-collar voters the same way you appeal to minorities and women, i.e. by running a real progressive (aka a New Deal Democrat) for President.
Sure, some of those blue-collar males may still be prejudiced against minorities and gays and have regressive attitudes about women. But Democrats can never win by playing on those prejudices and deliberately inflaming them. This last election proved that even Republicans can't win that way.
pampango
(24,692 posts)You recommend that we run a 'real' progressive in order to win the white blue-collar vote. It seems that Obama was a "real progressive" (a 'new Deal Democrat') as far as minority and female voters were concerned, but not white blue-collar voters. Do the latter have a higher standard of "progressivism" that Obama failed to meet?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Consistently standing for the right things would probably do better but if not it would still be right.
Focus on working class economics and maybe layoff the screw your grunt job, take out a loan, go to college, and get on the rat race you see the kids on with a mortgage.
Burst bubbles by calling lies lies under the spotlight. Some common misconceptions should have been killed dead years ago.
Quit with the gun control stuff.
Of course you will still have your fundies, tax avoiders, assorted bigots, rape is a gift from God mouth breathers but there is a strong governing majority if we put dollars in worker's pockets and get off the globalism and gun control.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)If both, or hopefully, ALL parties, would speak to adults like adults, without trying to enforce their prejudices, helping them see how "other" people are harmless and just want to live their lives, like everyone else, that would be a great start.
Unfortunately, though, there's tons to be made in the hate and religion industries (same thing) and they've proven that over centuries.
Perhaps if there's infinite transparency in gov't (yeah, right), people could really see how gov't money is spent and realize how much is being paid to pigs who exist only to screw over the people.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)those men are LOST TO US.
Frankly, they have been convinced the Democratic Party isn't for manly masculine men.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)For example, lowering eligibility for Medicare by five years every year would help a lot of working class guys who can't afford health insurance otherwise. It would also strengthen Medicare because it would add younger, healthier people to the pool who would still be paying premiums.
Low-interest refinancing of mortgage and student debt.
Infrastructure projects that put the long-term employed to work building useful things, put money in their pockets, and get them spending.
Do not miss opportunities to help people in trouble! (This is the HUGE mistake that the Dems made during the farm crisis of the early 1980s. They had Congress at the time, and if Reagan had vetoed their efforts--such as low-interest refinancing--then they could have, pardon the expression, made hay out of his refusal.)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)Withywindle
(9,988 posts)The problem is with RURAL and SUBURBAN white men. RURAL and SUBURBAN white men have issues with Democrats, whether they're in Idaho or Mississippi or upstate NY (you don't notice it so much in the latter because NYC steamrolls the state's electoral votes reliably--but if you actually talk to rural white men in upstate NY, they don't vote much differently than rural white men in West Virginia).
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Supporting manufacturing jobs for middle to lower class white men is what got their vote in Ohio and that is what will get their vote in other states.
spanone
(135,843 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Republican Lite and a whole bunch more FDR Democratic spine, for starters?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's it, really. No need to lob the identity politics ball around. Offer a real alternative to Tricklenomics, and they'll jump aboard just like any other rational person. Those who still refuse to join in with the "darkies," well we didn't want them anyway, so no loss.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)we could start by not calling every white man or woman who doesn't 100% agree with everything Obama has done a racist. I know everyone doesn't do it but it seems like the last 4 years there have been alot more of that than ever before, and I think that, that has something to do with it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Romney led by 40 points among southern working-class whites, the president actually led by eight points among Midwestern working-class whites. So it is not all that accurate to do the 'working class whites' routine. Oregon is pretty damn white and working class, went for Obama 4 times. How can that be if we do not attract such voters? Answer: we do attract such voters, just not in the South, and that is no great surprise.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)Except for one very conservative Latino male, these are all "white" males from their mid 20s to their mid 50s. Except for me in this group of about 15, they are all anti-Obama (some rabidly so). Many are Libertarian and states rights advocates. Many get their entire news content from Fox News. Most are into guns some very much so.
1. They find the ACA to be totally unacceptable. They view it, like Romney as a "gift", and they feel health insurance should be earned and given to people.
2. They want to opt out of anything that smacks of socialist security such as social security, welfare, unemployment, etc. They are alarmed at the number of individuals that take a government check, and feel that number is why Obama won this election. Pretty soon they feel that the moochers will take everything from those who work.
3. They have bought Benghazi hook, line, and sinker with no question. Many were as aggressively for the invasion of Iraq at the time.
4. These are not dumb indviduals, all have engineering degrees, and several have Masters degrees in Engineering and some MBAs.
5. They are alarmed by the debt and the moves of the Federal Reserve to pump up the economy. Many would want to return to the gold standard.
6. They are worried that the ACA will lead to our company dropping health insurance (while they also complain about our health insurance). I have tried to point out that the market forces have not changed - typically engineers are going to be offered health insurance irrespective of ACA.
7. They really do not want to pay anymore in taxes. Income in our state is taxed at a 9% over about $60K, and at 8% at $40 to $60K. Real estate taxes are high. We also have a 7% sales tax.
8. They are of course birthers but I have not heard so much about that lately.
9. They all have the anecdotes about the welfare recipient turning the safety net into a hammock.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)views.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And then by making sure they know who it was that did it.
