http://www.philly.com/inquirer/colu...rican_Debate___Getting_white_men_to_jump.html [rquoter]The American Debate | Getting white men to jump The Democrats need to bring more of them into the fold if they hope to win the White House next year. By Dick Polman For The Inquirer Most white guys have a problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton. That's no surprise, because most white guys have long had a problem with Democrats in general. White guys, who compose roughly 36 percent of the electorate, are potentially a major impediment for the party seeking to recapture the White House in 2008 - as they have plagued Democrats in virtually every presidential election since 1968. Yet you may not have heard much about this, because, in our political discourse, "gender gap" is typically defined as the GOP's chronic inability to win the women's vote. Considering the havoc white guys have wreaked on the Democrats' presidential prospects over the last 40 years, it's clear that the white-guy gap deserves equal time - and that Democrats would be foolish to assume they can win decisively in 2008, or win at all, simply by maximizing their appeal to female voters. The stats speak for themselves: In 2004, John Kerry, who lost a tight race, attracted only 37 percent of the white guys; in 2000, Al Gore, who lost an even tighter race, won 35 percent; in 1988, Mike Dukakis won 35 percent; in 1980, President Carter won 32 percent; in 1984, Walter Mondale won 31 percent; in 1972, George McGovern won 31 percent; in 1968, Hubert Humphrey, who lost a tight race, won 33 percent. Not even the rare winners - Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 - managed to craft white-guy majorities. Clinton never even broke 40 percent. And now his wife is on the stump, stressing sisterhood - dishing with the girls on The View; doing serious female outreach (Businesswomen for Hillary, Nurses for Hillary); e-mailing "HillGrams" to women who want to know what she's saying about women. The sisterhood strategy makes sense, of course, considering the historic nature of her candidacy. Assuming she wins the nomination, she could potentially inspire millions of first-time female voters. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, writes in a memo that women are the "critical swing vote" in 2008, and a supportive academic, Thomas Schaller, says that going after white guys is "a classic sucker's bet." But I'm more persuaded by political commentator David Paul Kuhn, whose new book, The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, argues that white-guy clout remains "the most durable reality of American politics." In 1952, nearly 50 percent of white guys identified themselves as Democrats; today, that share has been cut in half, particularly because of the exodus of blue-collar white guys who were once mainstays of the New Deal coalition. Is it mere coincidence that the Democrats have lost seven of 10 presidential elections since 1968, and haven't topped 51 percent of the national vote since 1964? Unless the '08 Democratic nominee can narrow the white-guy gap, he or she will have little margin for error. And indeed, there's no evidence that Hillary is wowing the white guys. Gallup reports that only 25 percent favor Hillary as a general-election candidate. That makes McGovern look good. And white guys are clearly a drag on her prospects when she's specifically matched against Rudy Giuliani. She and Giuliani are virtually tied in the various Gallup tallies, but she trails him among all male voters by 16 percentage points; if not for the strong support she enjoys from black men, that gender stat would be far worse. It's the same story in potentially pivotal Florida: A new Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani topping her by three points statewide - and by 23 points among all men. Narrowing the white-guy gap will be a challenge, regardless of who gets the Democratic nod. Millions of working-class guys, notably those who are not unionized, have long come to believe that the Democrats care little about their lives, as opposed to the lives of women and minorities. Ideologically, meanwhile, white guys in the aggregate are more conservative than the electorate as a whole, more attuned to national-security issues, and more committed to a strong military posture. These men, as a group, like their leaders to be tough and resolute. John Kerry struck out with most white guys in 2004 when he failed to fight back during the Swift Boat smearings. Hillary, notwithstanding her overt sisterhood appeals, has tried to address white-guy concerns. Witness her refusal to apologize for her '02 war authorization vote. Such an apology would have been seen by most white guys as a sign of weakness. Witness her refusal to endorse a full-scale Iraq withdrawal, and her insistence that large numbers of troops remain in the region: She's signaling that she has the will to flex U.S. military muscle. She wants white guys to think of her as Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir, not Gloria Steinem. And she has swayed at least one quintessential white guy, country singer Merle Haggard. We'll have to wait and see whether Merle is a barometer of shifting white-guy sentiment. That may depend on whether Hillary has the requisite "grit" - defined by political author Kuhn as "an inward quality of strength of character," the top criterion on the white-guy checklist. Hillary certainly thinks she does. As she remarked last week, "Women are like tea bags. You never know how strong they are until they get into hot water." Presumably, white guys won't mind that she borrowed the line from Eleanor Roosevelt.[/rquoter]
I'm white. Oh, you mean white guys like Dick Cheney who go for canned hunts at places that display the Confederate flag... Snark aside, the whole problem with any analysis like you've posted is that Bush has buried the Republican brand and the electorate is now much different than when Reagan was elected... this has all the makings of a watershed election that breaks the trends.
I agree with this as a problem for Democrats. The only "plus" in this for Dems is that over time, minorities and women are becoming a larger part of the electorate so it helps overcome that declining popularity. That said, I hate it when people say things like "Dems are dominating amongst women" - since the parties are basically 50/50 split in general, that just means that "Reps are dominating against men". Same with minorities vs. white voters. It's kind of like the opposite of the GOP "why bother" strategy with black voters. The question Dems have to ask is if there's a way to win more white men without losing other strengths. One thing I'm curious about: Not even the rare winners - Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 - managed to craft white-guy majorities. Clinton never even broke 40 percent. How close was Carter in 1976? Did he get 49% for example? How did Bill do in 1992/1996? Given that Perot was in the race, 39% might have been pretty good for all we know.
figured someone would post that like it means something. Didnt know you were the type to stereotype. ito the topic, i'd say guys in general have a problem with hillary
You know it's not really stereotyping if you are actually forming an opinion on something people do. Now, it has no relevence in this thread, but I'll say it right now, people who participate in these canned hunts are total douchebags.
Don't bother. Let the Dem's place Hilary as their choice, and then watch her get slaughtered in the election.
i don't think she gets slaughtered, at least in terms of the popular vote. but i think she has serious problems in the electoral college, depending of course on who the republicans nominate.
Interesting thread, basso. This might really be a defining election for the sexes. I saw this yesterday in the Dallas Morning News, that liberal bastion. Female voters a giving group Elections '08: Democratic candidates boosted by 'unprecedented' trend 04:20 PM CDT on Monday, October 29, 2007 By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News choppe@dallasnews.com Soccer Moms have tilted elections, but it's always been Sugar Daddies who have underwritten the victories. Until now. Campaign data and interviews show that women are opening up their pocketbooks in unprecedented numbers and their cash infusion has helped catapult leading Democratic candidates beyond the Republican frontrunners in money raised. Experts say that it could be the presence of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the first viable female candidate for president, disillusionment over the Iraqi war or a powerful push by women for change. Regardless, public numbers and the campaigns of Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama confirm that more than half of their contributions came from the checkbooks of women. "This is unprecedented," said Debbie Walsh, director of Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics. "I think the trend you're seeing is that clearly this election is engaging women, energizing women, and that they're digging down and giving," Ms. Walsh said. Over the past decade, women have provided 28 percent of political donations – including gifts to political action committees, candidates, political parties and presidential and congressional races, according to a study released in June by the Women's Campaign Forum. In the 2004 presidential election, of those who gave $200 or more, 41 percent of Democrat John Kerry's donors were women, compared with 30 percent of President Bush's contributors. "There's a lot that has deterred women from being a part of the money game," said forum director Ilana Goldman. "It might be personal resources. Or that it seems a fairly distasteful financing system for campaigns." Women have preferred to evoke change in their communities by giving to charities instead, she said. "But for better or worse, money matters in politics," she said. A study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, based on contributions to presidential candidates as of Oct. 16, decided the gender of donors by splitting the donations based on first names. Of contributions over $200, half of the donors to Mrs. Clinton and 46 percent of those to Mr. Obama were from those with common female first names. Comparatively, 30 percent and 28 percent of the donors to Republican frontrunners Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, respectively, were women. Because many women are smaller givers – less than $200 – and those numbers were not part of the survey, the percentage of female donors for all campaigns is probably higher. While the number of female donors has soared, men still are writing bigger checks. Even in the Clinton and Obama campaigns, men have given more money – 56 percent of the money raised. But the number of female donors is not lost on the Clinton and Obama campaigns, who have actively been courting female contributors. "Women voters clearly provide a far higher ratio of our contributors," said Ann Lewis, senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. "We know it is historically high for a presidential campaign. And we also know that the numbers will continue to grow," Ms. Lewis said. A women's summit in Washington earlier this month drew 900 women and raised $1.5 million – a record in one-day fundraising for the Clinton campaign. "We literally ran out of room in the hotel and wound up having to turn people away, which could really break a person's heart when they have checks," Ms. Lewis said. Becky Carroll, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said the campaign's female contributors outnumber men, about 180,000 to 155,000. The campaign counts all incoming money as a contribution, whether a campaign T-shirt sale or an event or a check for the maximum $2,300. "Clearly, the war is an issue that has motivated a lot of women to get involved," Ms. Carroll said. "They're organizing in a way that I haven't seen in a national way." She said Mr. Obama's push to change the tone in Washington and bring an end to the war in Iraq have caused an upsurge of involvement by women. "We don't have to go looking for people; people are coming to us. Clearly, women are ultimately going to decide the difference," Ms. Carroll said. Women might make the difference, but it will be for the Republican candidate, said Amber Wilkerson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. "At the end of the day, voters of all walks of life are going to support candidates who stand with American taxpayers and hard-working families. So it really doesn't matter how much the Democratic candidates raise, we really believe their liberal values and their policies to raise taxes and increase the size of government are still completely out of touch with voters," Ms. Wilkerson said. She pointed out that Election Day is still more than a year away and said it is too early in the process to see or analyze trends. "Women are just like the rest of the electorate in terms of the policies that are most important to them and their families," she said. "When it comes down to voters actually electing the next president, they're going to vote for the candidate who is going to keep their taxes lower, is going to protect the country and is going to keep Washington out of their hair. And the Democrats do not stand for those policies." Ramona Oliver of Emily's List – the largest political action committee in the nation with 100,000 members, 90 percent of them women – said all the numbers and indicators do show a trend, and she believes the purse strings are being loosened by women who are excited by the prospect of the first female president. Emily's List drives donations to female candidates who favor abortion rights and is strongly supporting Mrs. Clinton's campaign "There are women out there who are supporting Obama or [John] Edwards, or a Republican candidate, who still get excited about the idea and think it would be a fabulous thing to have a woman president," Ms. Oliver said. During the midterm elections, Emily's List directed 116,000 contributions totaling $11 million. The average individual gave $98, she said. So the records of donors of $200 and above "is the tip of the iceberg," Ms. Oliver said. This movement of women began two years ago and was a driving force behind Democrats taking control of Congress, she said. Gender gaps – in which female voters came out in substantial numbers for Democratic candidates in a half-dozen key states – made a large difference, she said. And that involvement by women is only mounting. "There's a tremendous environment for change, and that environment has been driven by women voters," Ms. Oliver said. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...givers_29tex.ART.State.Edition2.4284105.html# D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush.
He's trying to make some point about me stereotyping white guys as redneck racists, which is obviously not the case. (It just happens that white redneck racists are a major part of the Republican base.) He's also concerned that Dems will write off these people and not try to reach out to their values, as if they would vote for Dems anyway... or have any desire to reach out to values other than their own. I'm sick of everyone dancing around this... if you're a Republican and you don't support racism, then you need to find somewhere else to go because the people who call themselves Republicans and who are in power now depend on coded racist appeals to maintain that power. Everyone knows it, tons of papers have been written on it, Atwater admitted it, their rhetoric proves it, and if real Republicans want to see their party become anything beyond a regional minority party full of nutjobs, you need to acknowledge it and take your party back.
there are plenty of racists and homophobes that are part of the democratic base- witness the efforts to find a new democratic senate candidate to challenge liddy dole. all parties it's whack jobs; the republican party is not immune, neither is it unique.
the intelligence from you that i have come to expect. you completely misunderstand and then misrepresent my point of view. It's really quite impressive. fortunately i took you off ignore simply for the laughter and amuzement of how ridiculous (and demented) a person can be...you and basso are exactly the same, so when yall go "at it". well, wow! pure entertainment... Really its not unlike the 2 girls 1 cup video clip. Its disgusting, r****ded and sickening, but yet you cant help but watch and laugh while wanting to puke. However, afterwards you feel sorry for the world that there are people really like that. thanks for being like a video clip of people eating turds, minus the visual.
dammit, I am so disturbed. I was going to post a joke with a gap-toothed hick type of white guy, but after searching pages and pages of images for "gap tooth" or "diastema," I am now sick at my stomach after all these close-ups of teeth and dental surgery. I would rather watch someone eat poop.
Speaking of people who are exactly the same, your words (and even your misspellings) are eerily reminiscent of a recent poster... how's Canada?
