The Need to Attract White Voters
There is a lot of racists, bigoted, and misogynistic shit going down right now – the termites of America have come out in droves. This post is not about that.
Since 1976, a Democratic presidential nominee has never won the white vote. The 2016 Election continues that trend. Of course, some votes for Trump were from the termites, but many of the of those who voted for Trump are not racist at all. But most importantly we have to stop labelling all Trump supporters as vile termites.
The Democratic Party needs to figure out how to connect with white voters. The lessons the party has learned in accepting and fighting for minorities and disenfranchised people, must be taken and adapted into an outreach program for American whites, both uneducated and college-educated who feel extremely left out of the process.
If you keep on labelling all Trump supporters as disgusting, you are just being elitist and judgmental. More importantly, we will continue to lose elections and isolating a large portion of the American population. We need to find someway to bring them in to the fold.
The graphic is from American Progress.
Tags: Featured, White Voters
Here are numbers (exit polls, so grain of salt) that seem to show racism was not the prime mover for many Trump voters:
“According to the CNN exit polls a full 15 percent of those who had an unfavorable opinion of Trump still voted for him.”
“57 percent of those surveyed said that they felt negative about Trump becoming president, but 14 percent of them still voted for him.”
We call them dumb, but how many times have Democrats have simply gone with the message “Hey, at least we’re not those crazy Republicans.” And it’s not just Democrats. Mike Castle went with the “at least I’m not one of those crazies” and lost, and for the same reason: Too many people figure someone else will take care of voting against the crazies.
Jason has said this for years and it remains as true as ever: People are motivated when they’re voting for something, not against something. All those people who didn’t like Trump but voted for him anyway were winnable. Clinton just didn’t give them any reason to reject him.
Also, what goes around comes around. During Clinton’s impeachment a lot of Democrats said they didn’t care about his sex life. A lot Republicans just said the same thing about Trump. Because while we can list 100 reasons he’s the wrong person for the job, the one they went with from the Billy Bush tape to Election Day was “look at how he treats women.” Turns out that, just as Democrats said 20 years ago, a majority of people don’t care as much about that as they do their own financial situation.
I’d love to figure out a way to do that, but I fear it isn’t so simple. So much of white people’s fear and economic anxiety is about the “other”. Dems lost white guys when they welcomed in women, POC, LGBT, and non-Christians.
When I look back to Bill Clinton’s “winning” message it wasn’t all about “I feel your pain”. It also had a lot to do with Welfare reform… and the famous Sister Souljah moment. That brought the white vote on board. He was a centrist – and that won. Are we willing to go there?
I’m not sure how that would work today – what shape it would take, but I’m wary since I think bringing white America back may result in our having to oust (or villainize?) another group. When we talk about identity politics we rarely place whites into that group; we don’t assign them agendas beyond economics. That is a mistake. They aren’t voting their paychecks or economic policies that will better their lives. Their votes are just as (more so this election) emotional as anyone else’s. It’s probably a good time to stop pretending that they aren’t. Because while not all Trump supporters are racists, bigots and misogynists they had zero trouble voting for one.
Many white people believe that their lot in life is the fault of women, POC, immigrants, LGBT, Jews, etc.. The first step, imo, would be changing that mindset, but that almost seems insurmountable. How many times in our lives have we heard things like: “I would have gotten that job/promotion, but they had to give it to the black women.” or “I would have been accepted to that university but I was rejected because I’m white.” I know I’ve heard that all my life. Economic policy won’t fix that.
That said, Trump and his policies may accomplish what we can’t. Non-wealthy white people are about to be screwed over. Royally.
Democrats sold out the black as well as the white working class on labor and workforce issues long ago, hoping to make up the electoral difference by appealing to the very legitimate fears of black and brown people. One day that might be enough, but not today.
yes, democrats do need to attract white voters or more idiots like trump will be elected. meanwhile, blacks didn’t turn out like they did for obama (didn’t look past skin color?) and white millenials didn’t turn out because they are too ignorant of history to think people would vote for trump. in their little bubble, they assume progressive thinking will just happen automatically. corporation-loving hillary was hardly the perfect candidate, and a big segment of america does legitimately feel left out. but none of that is an excuse to let trump win. dems need to find some electable economic populists.
It’s really kind of simple. Trump didn’t do anything other than his usual vague promises – we lost a traditional stronghold because neoliberals just said “US manufacturing is dead, move to the city and learn to code or get a service job” – well guess what, these folks don’t like being told that their way of life is an anachronism and they don’t matter. Bernie did AMAZINGLY WELL amongst the rust belt workers – just talk to them, actually draft legislation and stump for US manufacturing like “it’s doomed” is not a foregone conclusion. Realignment of trade deals, partywide platform to drop the offshoring tax breaks, infrastructure, green energy job training, etc. Guess what – we win back the rust belt pretty much instantly unless Trump actually helps those people (and given the cabinet picks he’s throwing around, not bloody likely that happens). Then we make inroads to grab back NC, shore up VA, own the upper Northeast again (including Maine and NH). 50 state strategy without the neoliberalism, but with an emphasis on flipping purple states.
I’ll let Samantha Bee respond to the black voter turn-out.
Pete Ludwig nailed it.
“[Bill Clinton] was a centrist – and that won. Are we willing to go there?”
Clinton’s first term didn’t feel like centrism to me. FMLA and tax increases on the rich come to mind. After 12 years of Reagan/Bush, it tasted like victory. In 1992 the nation wasn’t ready for a Democrat left of Bill Clinton, and we can be grateful for Bill’s centrism to put the brakes on the far worse Reaganism.
Bill Clinton survived as a Southern Democrat by selectively adopting centrist or even rightward positions. Remember he lost his governorship over the death penalty but won it back when he changed positions to support it. A Faustian bargain, but without Clinton’s appeal in 1992 we would probably have run someone unable to beat even GHWB. In 1992 the leftist star was jerry Brown who was winning primaries and was the Howard Dean of his day, until he floated the idea of Jesse Jackson as VP which tanked his candidacy, losing even NY.
But… manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back. In fact, pretty soon we’ll be losing retail, fast food and grocery store jobs because technology is heading that way. I’m not sure why lying to these people is the way to go – altho, maybe it is, since apparently many of them buy almost anything.
And while I get (not really, because it was so effing stupid) not voting for Clinton, can someone explain why people wouldn’t turn out for Russ Feingold? Sheesh, people have zero understanding of how our government works.
It’s also important not to conflate Trump voters with Trump supporters. There is a well documented human tendency in these types of dual choice situations to assume that those making a choice different from one’s own are affirmatively choosing even as one’s own choice might be more of a “lesser of two evils.” In other words, to believe those choosing the other candidate like that candidate more than they actually do.
@Pandora I’m not picking on you, but your comment had so many key elements for my points that I had to use it.
“Many white people believe that their lot in life is the fault of…”
And the white privilege narrative has reinforced that belief. Look around at those places in PA, OH, KY, etc. Visit those small towns, see how they are living. And then, give them the talk about their white privilege. And when they get up to speak, tell them to shut up, sit down, and just listen because since they are white they can’t understand. Honestly, that’s that what they have heard and read, because that’s what liberals have said. You can’t say that type of messaging hasn’t alienated white people.
“So much of white people’s fear and economic anxiety is about the “other”.”
Well, sort of. Their fear is not about the other per se. Their fear is the cost to them and their families. If the other get jobs, without white people losing their jobs then they don’t care about the other.
“Dems lost white guys when they welcomed in women, POC, LGBT, and non-Christians.”
No. You lost white guys when you shoved them aside as if they no longer mattered as you welcomed the others.
“I’d love to figure out a way to do that, but I fear it isn’t so simple.”
Yes, that is correct it is not that simple, but one place to start is to be more inclusive. Stop talking about “white privilege” to people have a lived a hardscrabble life. Stop telling them they are guilty of things they have never even thought about. Include them in your causes, because the color of their skin aside, they too have struggled.
We don’t have to be silent about racism and bigotry in order to win over white people, we just have to stop blaming white people for being white. We need to value them just as much as nonwhite people in the Democratic Party.
I’m listening but these Deplorables are successors to the Wallace/Reagan Democrats who left the Democratic Party when our party did the right thing to pass the civil rights and voting rights bills and integrated African Americans (and other ethnic groups) into our party. Economic stagnation for the middle class began in the late 60’s/70’s coincidental to these rights advances we support as the post WWII economic boom began to slowly erode. So I’m not buying the argument that it’s mainly economic anxiety. The pretty high level demographics of the Trumpites seems to bear that out. It is racial animus and or/resentment pure and simple. How do you seat them next to the very people they removed themselves from to the burbs, exurbs and rural areas? You can offer them a seat at the table, you can help them through economic crisis in their communities but you can’t force them to be with those they reject. They showed us that when they left the cities, left public schools and opposed “forced busing”.
pandora: do you really think samantha bee’s quip offers justification for low black turnout? it’s not a matter of expecting black people to help us out. it’s a matter of black people voting to help themselves out. s.bee is smart and funny, but she drips with condescension. stewart and colbert avoid the disdain (at least enough) and are funnier too. i wonder how many millennials watch shows like bee’s and feel so smug about their opinions that actually voting doesn’t seem necessary.
100% agree, Stan. We need to stop pretending that this is about economics. Yes, that’s part of it, but if it were really about improving economic conditions for the little guy they wouldn’t vote Republican. Voting for Reagan = union busting and a free-for-all to screw over the little guy, but these guys loved, loved, loved the way he talked about Welfare Queens and Strapping Young Bucks. It’s resentment politics 101. That’s what they voted for.
And it’s amazing, given everything said about women, POC, LGBT, non-christians, etc., pointing out white privilege gets the biggest outcry. Talk about privilege. So, if we want to drop the labels, let’s drop all of them. Because here’s the truth. White people own this disaster. 100%.
One more thing… if white people were half as worked up about the labels and treatment of minority groups as they are about the term “white privilege” this country would be a better place.
Everyone read this statement:
“s.bee is smart and funny, but she drips with condescension. stewart and colbert avoid the disdain (at least enough) and are funnier too.”
To actually label Samantha Bee as condescending and disdainful when she does exactly – and I mean exactly – the same thing as Stewart is the problem. Women in comedy – they need to tone it down, be nicer, smile more, amirite?
Why can’t Democrats get behind an economic message that attracts both black and white voters? The fact is the midwest is 85% white and was especially hard-hit by the loss of good jobs over decades. In my experience white people are perfectly happy to work alongside black or brown people as long as they have good secure jobs.
The labor market at the low end of the blue-collar spectrum is now being dominated by illegal foreign labor in nearly all regions of the country. Those jobs were once the staple and the jobs of last resort in hard times for white and black workers without college educations. Democrats, who are the purported party of the working class, failed to protect white and black American workers from loss of those jobs and the consequent downgrading of wage and job security at other wage levels as well. I get that this can be argued differently with much nuance, but this is how working class voters see it.
“In my experience white people are perfectly happy to work alongside black or brown people as long as they have good secure jobs.”
And if they lose that job, or don’t get that promotion, then remind me who they blame? It ain’t as simple as you paint it.
“but this is how working class voters see it.”
Exactly! And to continue to portray it in terms of racial animus is ridiculous.
The fact is anyone not like me is the “other” that includes whites. If you are an uneducated white, you are not like me – you are “other” (deplorable). If you like NASCAR you are the other. If you have a thing for a phallus that shoots projectiles you are the other. If you are bible thumper you are the other.
But I can get along with you or at least tolerate you, if you didn’t take my job, cause the loss of my job, or cause my job to not be able to support my family.
We are what we do and for most whites, their job defines them. Those who have jobs cannot imagine what it does to one’s sense of self not to have one. And then to see jobs going those who will accept what is nearly slave wages, adds insult to injury.
If you want to portray that as racial animus, then they will proudly wear that racist badge. Many may see this outcome as white backlash (white lash) but while there are racial aspects to it, I’m telling you, it’s about the perception of being shoved aside, ignored, and beaten down.
And yes you should drop the labels, all of them. I’ve said this many times before, labels divide. So if your intent is to unite, then those labels you so blithely adopt have to go.
Lastly, there you go again with the labels – white people do not own this 100%. No group owns this 100% and Samantha Bee is not the arbiter of who is assigned the responsibility.
The Democrats got smacked upside the head with a 2 x 4 and the only lesson learned is that “white people own this disaster.” Let’s see how far that carries you in the next 4 years. It won’t win you any new friends and your old friends didn’t show up or you would have won.
I can’t believe how quick people – who are mostly mute, and a lot of times hostile, on women’s, POC, LGBT, Muslim, etc. concerns have always been front and center on white people concerns. I can’t believe, given everything Trump and co. said, that we keep fanning ourselves over the deplorable comment – which she NEVER applied to all Trump supporters (But hey, lying about Hillary was a team sport). I can’t believe we are still concerned and focused on white people when POC, Muslims, Jews, LGBT, women, etc. are living in actual fear and being attacked verbally – that will turn physical on both sides soon enough, btw. But let’s not worry about that, let’s discuss how to make white people more comfortable.
pandora, if i think stewart and colbert are better than bee, that makes me a misogynist? they all do the same general thing, but some are better at it than others. have you abandoned the idea of objective criticism because you might hear something you don’t like? so if you, as a woman, also thought stewart and colbert were better than bee, i guess you would not say so because feminism? or maybe your ideology is so internalized that objectivity would be impossible for you in the first place. people who see everything through ideology are kind of dangerous. more dangerous on the right than left, but still. also, i cited bee only because you cited her. i think amy schumer (a known woman) is very funny, but she is losing cachet with some on the left because she has strayed at times from contemporary feminist orthodoxy. and you wonder why democrats can’t get enough votes to win an election even against the worst candidate in american history.
Thanks so much for explaining that to me.
“I can’t believe we are still concerned and focused on white people…”
Me either. Let’s focus on good secure jobs for Americans of all races. Nothing white about that.
you’re welcome, pandora.
Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate, and ran a terrible campaign.. Yes Comney probably tipped the scales at the end.. But it shouldn’t have even been close. A washington insider at the wrong time, with the wrong message.
Almost every ad about how bad Trump was for women, which looking at results, white women didn’t care about. The rest? How she fought for children. Great, but how do you help me house my child?
Not one ad about what she would do for anyone. Nothing on jobs, nothing on healthcare, etc.. And when she did talk about it in debates she spurted out facts and points.. Nothing relatable.. Nothing inspiring
Give people a reason, and they vote, give them blah and they stay home. Like it or not trump gave them a reason.
Looking at turnout.. I feel everyone is missing something… yeah she got crushed by working class whites that voted. But what about the ones that didn’t? Those are the ones that voted for obama in 2 elections in a row in MI, OH and WI. White non college democrats stayed home, plain and simple.. Trump got less votes than Romney in all three states, but won. The deplorables comment hurt, it made sure the republican whites turned out, and demoralized the democrats and they didn’t.. Though I think PA may be an exception to that.. turnout was up..so not sure what happened there…
All above leading to why the DNC and party establishment needs to be ripped apart so the right candidates with the right message can succeed.
pandora wrote: “I can’t believe we are still concerned and focused on white people when POC, Muslims, Jews, LGBT, women, etc. are living in actual fear and being attacked verbally – that will turn physical on both sides soon enough, btw. But let’s not worry about that, let’s discuss how to make white people more comfortable.”
Seriously, this post is not about how to make white people more comfortable. And as I said at the beginning of the post, “There is a lot of racists, bigoted, and misogynistic shit going down right now – the termites of America have come out in droves. This post is not about that.”
The white working class feels abandoned by the Democratic Party and if the Dems wish to win elections (down ballot especially), the party needs to figure out how to bring them into the fold.
I completely understand that, but my social media (and every comment section out there) shows me that bringing them back will take a lot more than addressing their economic needs. And the ones who stayed home weren’t too concerned about their economy, their taxes, paying for college, etc. – if they were they would have held their noses and voted. They were fine with Trump becoming President since they out-sourced their vote.
Sadly, the white working class is about to be hammered hard – just like when they voted for Reagan. I’m not sure how you reach people who vote against their self-interest. This doesn’t only apply to the white working class.
There were a lot of women who jumped on the “Repeal the 19th” bandwagon. It was stunning. I have no idea how to reach them.
A difference in tone might help… Essentially the anger.
Here’s Bernie’s message: WE need to raise taxes on those motherfuckers…
Here’s sort of how Hillary touched on that during the debates: One of our many goals will be to raise taxes on the top percent. They too should help out with the rebuilding of this country…
Pandora, I don’t have any answers either, but we need to find them.
Nemski:
The only thing that works for white voters is to put a chicken in every pot. Civil Rights would probably have never passed if everyones pot had been empty at that time…
As Trump just reminded every politico… one doesn’t have to deliver that chicken to win, just promise it… Look at the above chart and remind yourself what the main campaign focus of every one of those high male white numbers were…
The way to flip those voters is to hammer that raising taxes on the top 1% gives income jumps as high as $10,000 a year to those on the bottom. If you don’t push that, (because even all our state’s congress people are in that top 1%) you will never get them.
I agree, but I fear (and I hope I’m wrong) winning them back means throwing other people under the bus.
I’ve really been thinking about this. I get why they’re upset about their union/manufacturing jobs. Not so long ago, white men could leave high school (or not even finish high school) and walk right into a good paying job – something, btw, afforded to no other group. Kinda like the Veterans GI Bill.
Unions, a group designed to unite workers, started to crumble when so many of these white union workers voted for Reagan. Why did they do that? What happened in their work place to make them vote against their economic interests? It still shocks me how these people paved the way to their own demise.
“The white working class feels abandoned by the Democratic Party…”
So does the black working class, except they don’t see Republicans as an acceptable alternative. Solid pro-labor policies will support white and black workers together.
The white working class are not white supremacists or white separatists. When we talk about the white working class, focus more on the working and less on the white. I don’t think anyone is talking about policies for “white jobs.”
Democrats have abandoned pro-labor policies, period. In fact it has been so long that Democrats supported labor, that working class voters can no longer remember how much it benefited them.
Manufacturing jobs are great but the focus should be on making our current jobs better. Four states raised their minimum wages on Election Day – it’s a start.
And yet, when Dems were pro-labor… Reagan won. This is about more than jobs. If we want to solve this problem I think we need to look at all aspects of this. History matters – Reagan Dems played a big role in today’s current economic situation. The question is why they voted for Reagan. He didn’t hide his anti-union agenda… and yet, white American workers loved him. Why?
“Unions, a group designed to unite workers, started to crumble when so many of these white union workers voted for Reagan. Why did they do that? What happened in their work place to make them vote against their economic interests?”
A good question. I know the answer you want, and it isn’t because they were working alongside blacks and losing promotions to them.
We were kids but we read the news then too. The real boogeyman of the day was inflation. Inflation was seen as destroying our standard of living. Presidents campaigned against inflation.
And unions,much stronger then, coped with inflation by demanding and winning wage increases. The media were hanging on daily news about each auto contract negotiation.
Then Reagan came along anddemonized unions as the source of the inflation that was destroying the working-class standard of living. He was only partly right, but working class voters bought it hook line and sinker.
.
In order to buy your argument about Reagan I’d have to ignore the statements he’s most remembered for. I don’t think it’s all about race/gender/religion, but I think that’s a bigger part of it then you realize. If we want to solve this problem, we need to look at all its parts.
I don’t have a pat answer. I’m working through it like everyone else. But the history speaks to that process.
Of course Reagan Democrats caused their own labor downfall – that is a fact of history. Reagan put together a potent mix of racism and jingoism that appealed to white voters.
And Reagan was right about one thing – inflation had to be stopped, because by increasing interest rates it was destroying investment in new business.
Paul Volcker forced inflation out of the economy with crippling interest rate hikes that cause the deep recession in the early 80s. In such a recession, businesses had the upper hand in union negotiations, because desparate scabs abounded.
When it was all over, inflation was contained and the investor class was very happy. But the unions were dying and could never again rebuild wages. From then on, all the profits went to the investors, and labor’s race to the bottom was on.
In order to accept your premise, I have to believe the majority of the public understood inflation. I have to believe that this was what people discussed around their kitchen tables when supporting Reagan. I’m not saying this wasn’t discussed, but I’d bet good money that it wasn’t the main topic of conversation.
I grew up with uncles in unions (DP&L, Teamsters, Police, etc.) and I clearly remember their words. Inflation was never mentioned. But welfare queens and young strapping bucks figured prominently – almost exclusively.
If we are serious about winning this demographic back we need to address all parts. Saying it’s all about jobs is exactly the same as saying it’s all about race/gender/religion.
(Altho, given the behavior of the last few days, racism, misogyny and bigotry are really defining this movement.)
“If we are serious about winning this demographic back we need to address all parts.”
OK so let’s start with the parts we didn’t win.
To the extent that black families and white families have different political interests, those differences are mostly not labor issues.
Are the labor interests of the white working class really all that different from the labor interests of the black working class?
Puck has the right idea.The way to unite blacks and whites is to stress issues that affect us all — labor issues.
The issues that were stressed were issues of equality. That’s a zero-sum game, and white men understand that instinctively. Besides, most people don’t want to be equal, they consider themselves above-average. Everyone does. So when you talk to people about equality, most of them see themselves being brought back down to average.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to people who claim interest in politics, but the way you win elections is by telling people what they want to hear.
It’s more complicated than that. The question is, imo, – How does the white working class view the black working class (and vice versa)? You are starting with the assumption of common ground. My experience tells me that, while there’s some crossover, they aren’t the same.
I see two different messages here. Figure out how to merge them and we’ll solve the problem.
The national democrat party is to liberal for the majority of white voters that live in suburban and rural America. Until they realize that the majority of Americans aren’t progressives, they will continue to lose.
I agree. But how tough would it have been to run on the issue, “We’re going to put America back to work!”
Yes, the [dismissive plural noun here] who voted for Trump overlooked all the racism, etc., but that was one of the themes he stressed constantly. Nothing stopped Clinton from going in the same direction. Hell, Bernie gave her the roadmap. But instead of a stirring call to action, they went with “What will the children think?”
Meanwhile, your position is much like the one Jim Baker kept taking on violence in Wilmington — we can’t solve this until we change society. Society won’t change much until our generation is all dead. You have to look for more temporary solutions in the meantime. Jobs seems like the most easily accessed.
“how tough would it have been to run on the issue, “We’re going to put America back to work!”
We must be ready to do exactly that in the coming Trump recession. “Stronger together” won’t cut it.
Attaching the Democratic Party to the non-college-educated working class, white or otherwise, is unfortunately as much of a demographically doomed strategy in the long run as the GOP placing its emphasis on cranky older voters.
Those jobs aren’t coming back, not matter who is in the White House or which party s/he represents. Read Elon Musk. Read Jeremy Rifkin. The world is changing rapidly in the post-industrialized regions. There aren’t going to be large factories employing hundreds and hundreds of workers very soon.
Pursuing the “white vote” or the “labor vote” is fighting the last war.
Not labor per se, but labor-friendly economic policy.
I was talking to a UD economist the other day about the coming jobs crisis. Between robotics and AI, an astounding number of jobs are going to disappear in the next 15-20 years, starting with drivers of all sorts.
Once self-driving vehicles hit the road in numbers, it won’t be long before the government mandates it as a safety feature. So truck drivers and taxi drivers disappear. Drones replace delivery vehicles.
And very few jobs will be exempt. Doctors, for example, are not as good at diagnoses as computers are. Radiologists don’t read x-rays as well as a computer does. The list is incredibly long.
Long story short, macroeconomists are looking at a world with 25-30% unemployment by 2030. So “labor,” as in working on a production line, is indeed over. But we’ve got to call the proletariat something, so “labor” will have to do until something else evolves to fill the niche.
“Those” jobs aren’t coming back is right – we have to make our current jobs pay more. It’s not going to happen at the Fed level now, but we can keep up the fight to increase minimum wage at the state level where possible.
“Once self-driving vehicles hit the road in numbers, it won’t be long before the government mandates it as a safety feature. So truck drivers and taxi drivers disappear. Drones replace delivery vehicles.
And very few jobs will be exempt. Doctors, for example, are not as good at diagnoses as computers are. Radiologists don’t read x-rays as well as a computer does. The list is incredibly long.”
I pointed this out the other day – in relation to fast food, retail and grocery stores. Your list is more complete. But we both agree that’s coming.
As demographics change – which they are, rapidly – catering to white people’s economic concerns is a losing strategy. Or, as Steve said, “Attaching the Democratic Party to the non-college-educated working class, white or otherwise, is unfortunately as much of a demographically doomed strategy in the long run as the GOP placing its emphasis on cranky older voters.”
White Trump voters lose in the long run. Actually, their kids lose – kids they refuse to tell the truth to. Union and manufacturing jobs are GONE. That may win elections in the short term, but not in the long term.
And I’ll point out that my liberal white, POC, non-christian friends aren’t debating how to win back white America. Not. One. Bit. So, when crafting the “new” message everyone should keep this in mind. They don’t – for one second – believe that the message to win back blue collar white voters is a message that speaks to them. So far no one has addressed that divide. I’m not even sure there’s a “winning” message there. Good luck – ’cause I’ve got nothing.
You misunderstand completely. The idea is to find a message that appeals to both. Nobody is looking to cater to the white Midwest. Rather the idea is to stress commonalities. No, people don’t see them without help. If it were easy, we’d have done it already.
It helps to remember that government cannot bring about social change, it can only reflect it. When it tries to dictate, people resist. The GOP became the party of no because fear is an easy thing to tap into, as we just saw Tuesday.
What the government can fix is the economy, but not by giving money to the private sector to create jobs. Government creates jobs when it builds things. The only thing stopping that from happening is the conservative disinformation about economics.
I just saw a quote from one GOP congressman who said spending on infrastructure went against conservatism. Let’s put this to the test. Do people really want jobs, or low taxes? Who cares how low your taxes are if you’re not making very much money? Keynesian stimulus brings jobs, and as long as those jobs are available to all, all should benefit.
The GOP is still cracking apart, remember. Wall Street right now is reacting positively to Trump’s promise of jobs. Congressional Republicans still want to enact their government-killing agenda. Something is going to give, and we don’t yet know which side will win that argument. It could be the issue that sets Trump against his party, which has the hammer of impeachment to hold over him.
Yeah, of course I must have misunderstood – even though I’ve been saying that finding a message that appeals to both groups is complicated. Whatever. The message to white voters and POC, women, and other minorities is different. Very different. So far, no one has put forth that winning message. I have no idea what it would look like. I just know it won’t look remotely like what’s put forth here.
Here’s the deal: Keep going down this path with white voters and you’ll end up losing all other groups – and Dems will lose white voters (who they bent over backwards for) to Rs, as usual. The income inequality message lost the primary when it came to POC and older women. There’s a reason for that. I’m not sure what it is. I do know that it exists. Doubling down on that same message isn’t the answer. It’s far more complicated. If that message was a winning strategy it should have won in the primaries. It didn’t. Find the answer to why large swathes of the D base rejected that message and we might find the answer.
As Puck pointed out, income inequality is the wrong message. Jobs is the message. They are different, but I suppose to an identity politics person, all economic proposals look alike.
But before I accept your premise that the economic lost the primaries, I’d have to accept your premise that the primaries were a fair test of the messages. That would mean I have to pretend the process was indifferent to the Clintons. That would force me to overlook 25 years of the Clintons running the Democratic Party the way Mike Castle ran the Republican Party of Delaware — taking all the resources for themselves and putting in place no successors.
Sorry, but I refuse to do that. You people won the in-party fight and it lost the war. Own it.
The notorious Republican autopsy concluded the GOP needed to win over more Hispanics. And now I’m hearing Trump actually did outperform Romney with Hispanics. So we should ask ourselves, what part of Trump’s message were Hispanics responding to, that we didn’t hear?
With hindsight I can see how condescending it was to campaign as if what the legal voting Hispanics cared most about was the status of illegal aliens.
@puck–the early results suggest that Trump outperformed both Romney and Dubya with Hispanics, especially in Florida, where the more conservative Cuban communities not happy with normalizing relations with Cuba broke for him, not Clinton.
Not so sure about those Hispanic totals.
That would force me to overlook 25 years of the Clintons running the Democratic Party
I know we are in full Clinton Derangement Mode here, but the Clintons have not been running the party for the last 25 years. They were absolutely in charge of it during the 8 years Clinton was President. But after — not so much. Barack Obama owns the current state of the Democratic party — lock, stock and barrel. He wasn’t especially interested in party development, much like Bill Clinton was not. Obama was the one who fired Howard Dean. Who was the most successful DNC Chair in my memory.
And replacing Howard Dean was… Tim Kaine.
@cassandra: All you say is true, and I overstate the case in saying they ran the party. They ran a large faction of it.
I meant that they run a party-linked machine that gave her the inside track on this nomination. From the first, she was treated as the next logical choice for the nomination, especially after serving as Sec. of State. You are right about Obama taking no interest in grooming a successor, or building the party. That’s just him, you have to accept the flaws with the virtues.
I don’t know if you were active yet in ’92, when Team Clinton was privately saying “Eight years of Bill, eight years of Hill.” They spent a long time rebuilding the party in the moderate, corporate-friendly image and purging most of the old labor people.
Those people didn’t disappear during the Bush years. Veterans of the Clinton years composed the pool Obama drew many of his people from, and those people believed that promise of ’92. Most of those people are as loyal to the Clintons as the Gordon people are to him. Obama was too young to have built up anything like as large a crew of his own people, with no ties to the Clintons.
I agree about Dean, which is why I can’t take a side in the DNC chair fight. Ellison, as Pandora said, draws a giant bull’s-eye on the party, but I don’t know enough about him to know if he has the organizing skills to do the job well. If he does, then find. And we know Dean can do the job, or at least could a decade ago. Since I don’t get a vote anyway, I’ll just wait and see.
And that party-linked machine got stymied by Barack Obama. It is pretty clear after two runs that the much vaunted party machine they are supposed to have so much influence over is vaporware. There is an AFL-CIO executive as a Vice Chair of the party and many other union execs are superdelegates, so am not sure what purging there would have been — except for the winnowing that would happen as unions become fewer in mumber and have fewer members.
Bill Clinton wasn’t interested in larger party building — and you can argue that it was under his watch that the idea of Presidentials being the highest order of party business became baked in the cake. Clinton wasn’t all that interested in downticket building, in more local messaging or even recruiting. The Trickle Down Party Efficacy has never worked for Dems. Obama pretty much took the same approach. While Dean stopped the DNC from taking money from lobbiests, DWS reversed that.
Reid, Schumer and Warren endorsing Ellison smells off to me. It could be just that Howard Dean pissed off so many establishment Dems when he was DNC chair that he can’t recover from that. But it also looks as though we have people embracing optics while not changing much about the focus of the party.
“t is pretty clear after two runs that the much vaunted party machine they are supposed to have so much influence over is vaporware. ”
It did a pretty good number on Bernie Sanders.
If you mean that Hillary ran a more effective campaign to get more votes that Bernie, then I would agree. But this “DNC undermined Bernie” is bullshit. And a way to rationalize the fact that he couldn’t get over the finish line unless, the nefarious Clintons took him out.
🙄
The DNC undermined a guy who might have lost anyway, or might not have. We’ll never know.
We do know. Because there was no undermining. There was email imagining undermining, which is not the same thing.
Attracting voters of all kinds requires, along with a durable, neighborhood based sales force comprised of activists, astute messaging. Neither the DNC, nor the Bernie nor the Clinton campaign had astute messaging. Clinton had a hodge podge of targeted sub-messages, but no overarching theme to pull it all together. Her “stronger together” theme was a wimpish, altruistic idea that provided neither for voter self interest nor a tangible kitchen table benefit.
Peter Hart, a really respected researcher did a ton of research which unearthed an idea that did both (self interest and benefit)…..expressed in the phrase “making your life better”…..not a slogan per se but my words describing his findings of what appealed in 2015. His research seems to have been shunted aside for some bullshit. His findings were that people inclined toward Democrats were mainly moved by an economic message because of their financial insecurity and the economic erosion/turbulence around them…….and wanted solutions and to be uplifted from a kind of social depression.
The party was astute enough to know that the macro economic trends disallowed over promise on jobs. And some knew that promises to blow up banks, wall street and rich people was not a benefit to their anxiety and suffering. Peter Hart uncovered this too.
In 2011 I was a part of a local effort to build a messaging program for our Houston/Harris County Democratic party….purely a volunteer effort for a team of more than 30 of us. After dozens of focus groups on a myriad of issues, we pre-tested on a very large scale among our party faithful several themes/concepts. What we concluded was an overarching theme that combined economic and social aspiration within a very broad cross section
of our coalition up and down the economic scale…..and across all our key demographic/ethnic boundaries. Again, not a bumper sticker, but an over arching theme that was adapted into all forms of communications tools available-
Democrats. Making Better Lives For All. Not just the privileged few. Our results in testing were remarkable similar to Peter Hart’s work on a national scale four years later. Hillary had some of the best marketing strategists/communications experts from the commercial as outside advisors. They somehow got preempted by strategy and messaging second raters from the political consulting class I have mostly disdained over many years. I sure wish the DNC and both Bernie’s and Hillary’s campaigns had jettisoned the parasites.
“The party was astute enough to know that the macro economic trends disallowed over promise on jobs”
And yet, overpromising on jobs was in fact the winning message this year.
Sorry puck, his bigotry and racism trumped his jobs overpromise.
I’ve been all over internet comments since the election (left, right, center sites), and I’ve yet to read one comment about jobs.
That supposes that only people who comment online vote. Nobody else could have had any other motives; the comments sections represent us all. The News Journal comments section, for example, represents you, because you live in Wilmington and that’s Wilmington’s comments section.
I would think you could see the absurdity of such arguments yourself, yet I have to keep pointing them out.
“Sorry puck, his bigotry and racism trumped his jobs overpromise.”
Not to 59.5 million people who voted for him. Outside of his million or so open white-supremacist followers, none of those people consider themselves racists, no matter how many times we have told them that they are. I wonder why not. You would think that after telling them over and over again how racist they are and how guilty they should feel, they would get with the program.
I guess the beatings will just have to continue until their morale improves.
Whether they consider themselves racist is not material. In my experience, it is the very rare racist who will identify as such. Even while wearing their sheets. They certainly responded to the supremacist message — at best signalled that they were AOK with it.
I’ve gone to other state sites – a ton of them. If this was about jobs, I’m not seeing it. Sure, it’s anecdotal, but if jobs are supposed to be the driving force comments about them should be pretty prevalent.
I keep hearing how we should have lied to white people; told them that we would be bringing their jobs (or jobs like them) back. What are we saying? That white people are dumb? Right now, that seems a reasonable conclusion. 🙂 And if we say, they know it’s a lie – that those jobs aren’t coming back – then what did they vote for?
But I’m betting they’re gonna flip out very shortly. About Medicare:
That’s 2017.
puck: i like you’re who the fuck knows comment at 5:11.
“Jobs” is itself just a shorthand for addressing the lack of economic security. Unemployment in MI is five-point-something. People are working; they just are working crappy jobs that don’t pay enough, and that is their future as far as the eye can see.
When protesters or rioters burn down their own neighborhoods we are quick to understand the expression of helpless rage, and intone “jobs” are the solution, even if the rioters aren’t chanting “Jobs… Jobs… Jobs….”
cassandra, i like the phrase “imagining undermining.” it must be the super moon making me like so much tonight. well, otherwise i’d have to deal with pandora.
here’s the thing about pandora: she can dish it out and she can take it. she just slugs it out with you. no shrinking violet she. is that last thing i said sexist because it suggests that she might be a shrinking violet because she’s a woman? it’s hard to know how to talk these days.
There are few bigots or racists who think they are according to the research I read. A minority of them truly believe in inferiority of the Black race; but a majority of them espouse resentment of what they perceive to be preferential treatment of minorities and resentment that they feel that other races are given preferential treatment for things like employment, college acceptance, social services, promotions, political positions, political clout, especially within the Democratic party, et al. Read the bigoted narratives about President Obama’s “undeserved” ascent to the most powerful position on the planet.
My own non-research validated opinion is that what has happened, in addition of misogyny which goes hand in hand with racism among white men, is a backlash to the surprise of the first Black person’s ascent to the Presidency , not once but twice and a feeling that Black people rallying to that cause overstepped their rightfully subordinate place in their society and a rejection of the Party that facilitated that event. This goes hand in hand with Republican voter suppression. Trump and the Republican GOTV effort activated increased voter participation from marginal participants in the exurbs and rural counties.
Democratic party building must be directed to the nearly 50% of eligible voters who are opting out of the system via grassroots, durable neighborhood organizations, using social media and ground work to build modern structures resembling the old ward healer structure. Through them, education, yes patronage and advocacy ACORN style and messaging.
“no shrinking violet she. is that last thing i said sexist because it suggests that she might be a shrinking violet because she’s a woman? it’s hard to know how to talk these days.”
No, it’s actually not. It’s only hard for you.
of course it’s easy for you to know what to say if you never consider the fact that you might be wrong.
Is that directed at me? If so, did you (a person who isn’t known for admitting to be wrong – which is fine by me) type that with a straight face?
May I suggest watching Bill Maher’s latest episode – be sure to pay attention to how the conversation alters when faced with John Legend.
One more thing… everyone sees how you can dish it out, but not take it. I’m not the delicate flower here. 😉
Also, shrinking violet isn’t associated to gender. Why would you even think that?
The data seems to back both sides of the debate:
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/13/yep-race-really-did-trump-economics-a-data-dive-on-his-supporters-reveals-deep-racial-animosity/
It’s by Sean McElwee, who concludes:
“Democrats must create a narrative that weaves economic, racial and gender justice together. A multiracial coalition is the path to sustained political power and reductions in economic, racial and gender inequality. As I’ve shown with political scientist Jason McDaniel, racism often diminishes support for progressive policies. The solution is not to abandon either the white working class or the diverse and rising American electorate that still stands poised to transform the nation.”
That’s all I’m trying to say. It’s not either/or.
haven’t seen the maher, but in the past i have agreed with maher when you (ok, maybe it was people like you) didn’t. and i was referring to the way some heavily ideological folks sometimes have an automatic response that doesn’t require much thinking. you know, like right-wingers on the other side, or christians. but, um, i could be wrong.
This is the sort of thing that should have America shitting its pants. From the NYT:
“During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.”
by “not taking it,” do you mean i always have to get the last word? then you might be right. i can be a dick about that sometimes (doesn’t mean i’m always wrong). sometimes i have to just stop reading a thread i’m on to make myself shut up. like now. let’s end on a note of agreement: bannon — wtf?