Do Democrats suddenly have a problem with white voters?

[davidn3600]

WASHINGTON (AP) — White voters of all ages were less likely to back Democrats this year than in elections past, helping Republicans nationwide but most acutely in the South — and overpowering Democratic efforts to turn out their core supporters among blacks and Hispanics.

In a nation growing ever more diverse, political forecasters repeatedly warn Republicans they must improve their appeal among minorities in order to remain competitive in the long term.

But for the Democrats, dominating the vote among minorities isn't enough to win elections today — and it won't be in the future if the GOP is able to run up similar margins among whites, who still make up a majority of voters in every state.

"The rule of thumb was Democrats could win with 90 percent of the African-American vote and 40 percent of the white vote," said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

"But now very few Democrats could think about getting 40 percent of the white vote. They're trying to get 30 percent. In the Deep South states, from South Carolina to Louisiana, it's very hard for the Democratic candidate to get 25 percent of the white vote."

Nationally, Republicans running for seats in the U.S. House won 60 percent of the white vote, while Democrats won the backing of 89 percent of African-Americans and 62 percent of Hispanics.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-won-shifting-white-votes-hurt-democrats-231245291--election.html;_ylt=AwrBJSBwdFxULDkATmnQtDMD

Democrat support from white voters has fallen nearly 10 points since 2006.

[JI7]

1. i think it's more "do some white voters have a problem with a black president"

[bravenak]

2. Agreed.

[get the red out]

53. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!

I completely agree.

[hfojvt]

58. and the first R-bomb is thrown

everybody duck and cover

Certainly some white voters do have a problem with a black president. But you may notice that many of those white voters voted D in 2008 when Obama was just as black as he was in 2010.

Maybe a number of other things happened.

One, the rise of the tea party. 27 Feb 2009 seems to be when that kicked off. But the Tea Party itself was not so much of a draw to white people, as probably the liberal reaction was a push against white people. It seems to me that the main liberal response was - to attack the Tea Party people - just for being white.

Sometimes when you attack people just for being white, you may offend other people who happen to be white. It's possible anyway.

Two, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates - 19 July 2009. Gates accused a white cop of being racist and Obama quickly chimed in to also attack the cop. Message to white America - do you have white skin? Then you probably are a racist.

Three - ironically enough, the election of Michael Steele as RNC chair on 30 January 2009. An attempt by the Republican Party to reach out to black voters, may have actually worked to reach out to white voters. Message to white people is, that not only is Obama President, but black people seem to be taking over everything.

Four - the same message may have been sent by many of the cabinet picks - Bill Richardson (hispanic), Gary Locke (Chinese American), Ken Salazar (hispanic), Eric Holder (black), Hilda Solis (hispanic), Steven Chu (Chinese American), Eric Shinsecki (asian), and then also Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton, and Kathleen Sebelius. True, there were four white men - Vilsack, Duncan, Donovan, and Geithner. But with a score of 4-10, it may have seemed like suddenly this was "no country for white men". The news seems to be 24/7 these days about how important hispanic voters are, and how politicians in both parties are falling all over themselves to reach out to hispanics.

Might be a good idea to try reaching out to white voters with something besides the back of your hand "you a$$holes are all privileged and racist". Because we can always drive more white voters away, if that is what we want.

[alp227]

60. You disgust me.

Obama's &quot m)essage to white America - do you have white skin? Then you probably are a racist"? Blaming Obama's cabinet racial makeup for white people not voting for Democrats? Are you sure you're on the right board?

[hfojvt]

62. I see you took to heart

my message of reaching out.

You know what is funny about analysis?

If I say "I think this is what may have happened."

That does NOT mean
I am glad it happened.
I think it should have happened.
It was the right thing.

Seems to me it could have been taken that way. Cop was a racist. How do we know that? Exhibit A - his white skin.

Cabinet picks are on the news. Seems to me that white men could have felt excluded, fairly or unfairly.

[alp227]

63. So what's your argument? What "should have happened"?

Is it Obama's responsibility to think for people who create strawmen like "cop was a racist because he's white" or who agree with Glenn Beck that Obama has a deep-seeded hatred for white people?

[hfojvt]

67. Maybe it is foolish

but I think the party should be about - the working class, the bottom 60%.

Not about gender or race, except insofar as there are, of course, all genders and all races in the bottom 60%.

Republican policies clearly favor those are the top, we should be able to win voters by showing that our policies are better for them than our opponents.

But first we have to make sure that our policies really ARE better for them.

[AnalystInParadise]

65. LMFAO

Good luck friend.....some people around these parts are wedded to the idea that whites are racist if they vote for policies that are not exactly helpful to many of them.

" the ACA is less than helpful to upper middle class voters and they are voting for Republicans now? Those FREAKING RACISTS".....

"the average white voter has seen their standard of living fall since 2008 and they are voting for Republicans? Those FREAKING racists"...........

I support PBO and his agenda but if it is hurting white voters, I also support their right to vote for something THEY consider better and don't label them racist for it.

Frankly the race card is losing its power since it is the first card so many people want to throw down.

[hfojvt]

69. Of course, the upper middle class has ALWAYS favored Republicans

And if the average white voter is voting against Obama because their standard of living has fallen since 2008, then that seems foolish to me.

Since that loss mostly results from the Bush recession of 2008.

My point is that "racism" as an answer does not explain - why so many white people voted for Democrats in 2008 when Obama was at the top of the ticket.

I think a certain part of the media framed the Obama victory itself as - white people got beat by a coalition of minorities and women.

Which is nonsense, because Obama doesn't win either election without a whole bunch of white men, myself and my notorious brother included, voting FOR him.

[ncjustice80]

84. Those voters ARE racists.

If you vote Rethug, its because you are a selfish asshole who hates poor people and minorities. End of story.

[LeftyMom]

80. Wait, if the problem is cabinet appointments Dems should be fucked with women voters.

But they're not.

So your argument fails and the problem is white dudes.

Moving on.

[Boom Sound 416]

83. White Democrats have a problem with POTUS

[former9thward]

87. Obama got 43% of the white vote.

Kerry got 41%. Last time I looked Kerry was white. But I guess that does not fit the 'whites are voting against Democrats because Obama is black and they are racist' meme.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[YoungDemCA]

96. Obama actually won though-and by a considerable margin-in 2008

Kerry lost. The fact that the white vote didn't change that much between 2004 and 2008-despite the fact that Obama got a greater percentage of the votes of ALL Americans-is telling.

[former9thward]

99. Telling what?

That whites voted in greater numbers for a black candidate than a white candidate so that means they are racist?

[Drunken Irishman]

106. It's not white voters - it's certain regional white voters.

There are specific regions where Kerry did far better than Obama among white voters - namely in the deep, deep south. That certainly smells like racism to me when, in 2008, the Democratic brand was much stronger than it was in 2004 when Kerry LOST to Bush. Moreover, in 2012, those gains seen in 2008 were all but lost as fewer whites voted for Obama than any recent Democratic candidate (and that includes Gore and Kerry, who both lost - and were white).

I'd wager that, yes, a good deal of white racists sucked it up and voted Obama in 2008. However, with his sweeping election victory, the increases seen among white voters should've been larger and most likely, had the Democrats nominated a white candidate, would've been larger in areas of the country where white votes actually decreased for the Democrats between 2004 and 2008 (places like Alabama, where Kerry won 19% of the white vote and Obama, four years later, actually did worse - winning only 10%).

[YoungDemCA]

108. +1

Thanks for articulating this better than I could.

[YoungDemCA]

95. +100000000000000000000000000

[840high]

101. To some degree but does

not account for dramatic drop.

[djean111]

3. Just looking around DU - evidently the problem the Democratic Party is having with its own base is..

White voters who are racist
Old voters who are racist and greedy
Young voters who are racist and apathetic
Hispanic voters who should suck it up about being deported
Racist voters in general
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Just amazing Obama got elected and reelected!!!!!!!!

Couldn't be policies or anything like that, right? Couldn't be the way the campaigns were run, right?

Demonizing the base is not going to fix anything.

[JI7]

5. the problem is Obama was not on the ticket and he put off immigration because of the Red State

democrats who wanted to appeal to certain white voters.

while Grimes did not win she did do better than Obama with that very ugly ad on immigration and not wanting to admit voting for a black person.

[JonLP24]

9. I think her refusal to say had to do with coal counties anger at Obama

Coal Counties Angry at Obama to Sway Kentucky Senate Race

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/coal-counties-angry-at-obama-to-sway-kentucky-senate-race.html

It didn't help as McConnell's 8 biggest gains from last senate election were in coal counties some of which were Democratic strongholds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-05/mitch-mcconnells-win-by-the-numbers

Exit polls appear she got the vast majority of her support from the Democratic base & Louisville. She did reasonably well with Independents but most still favored McConnell.

On edit - Hindsight suggests she should have forfeited coal country and ran on Obamacare but rather kynect

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/polling-obamacare-label-makes-big-difference-n102861

[JI7]

11. yes, Coal Country is a big thing in many states, people don't realize how much anger there is at

Obama over this. and it's not just coal either but regulations in other areas.

it would be interesting to see what would happen if there could be something else that would provide jobs in appalachian regions.

it's amazing how much power the coal companies have over these areas they have exploited(including killed and ruined many lives).

[ColesCountyDem]

17. Speaking as someone who lives in 'coal country', you're right about the anger.

For 70 years, from 1930 to 2000, southern Illinois was staunchly Democratic 'from the court house to the White House'. I can't say that any more, and the reason is simple-- the collapse of the coal industry.

In one decade, 1990-2000, my small county (pop. 42,000), saw 23 mines close, taking with them 7,000 high-wage, high-benefit, union jobs. Men and women who used to earn $40,000-$60,000 annually are now pushing carts at Wal-Mart for $9.00/hr. . Are they bitter about that? Yes they are, as are their families, friends and neighbors.

The E.P.A. is partially responsible, but so is Big Oil. Every Congressman from my district since Paul Simon has attempted to introduce legislation that would have encouraged the use of 'clean coal' technologies via tax credits, accelerated depreciation similar to that granted oil companies, etc. . Every single time such legislation was introduced, Big Oil lobbied hard to defeat it, and succeeded in doing so.

In Illinois alone, there are more recoverable BTU's of energy in the form of coal than there are recoverable BTU's in the forms of petroleum and natural gas under the Saudi Arabian peninsula. The technology to burn coal cleanly DOES exist, much of it developed (and used) at Illinois universities, primarily S.I.U. and E.I.U. .

This is why southern Illinois remains 'blue' at the court house and state house level, but 'red' at the federal level.

[truebluegreen]

33. Burning coal cleanly is only part of the problem.

The cost is a big issue too, and not just of energy for the consumer. And environmental destruction is not just about the air we breathe.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-6

From the article:

Unfortunately, clean, cheap coal is still a pipe dream. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the cost of capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and storing it in underground locations will increase the price of electricity from 30 to 100 percent, depending on the method used. In addition, coal-fired power plants that perform sequestration burn one-quarter more coal than their unimproved counterparts to produce the same amount of electricity. That means more destructive mining operations, more CO2 emissions from transportation and more coal ash, the toxic byproduct of all coal-burning. "We have implemented some technologies that are cleaning the air," says Mary Fox, an environmental scientist at Johns Hopkins University, "but that has led to a displacement of some of those waste products into solid waste."
(my bold)

[ColesCountyDem]

37. I don't disagree, but again, the increased cost is largely the fault of Big Oil.

The technology exists to burn coal cleanly, but it is expensive. The people who burn coal, primarily electrical generating companies, are not allowed to depreciate the costs of clean technology as Big Oil is allowed to depreciate the costs of its wells, pipelines, storage facilities, refineries, etc. . Were they allowed to do so, the cost per/KWH of generating electricity with clean coal technology would drop dramatically. If this weren't true, Big Oil wouldn't lobby so hard and spend so much money to prevent them from doing so, wouldn't you agree?

Environmentally, strip mining coal is a catastophe. Deep-shaft mining, on the other hand, need not be (and normally isn't) so destructive. The environmental destruction can be greatly ameliorated and/or prevented via regulation. I'm not sure whether or not you've ever been to southern Illinois, but it's an absolutely beautiful area of lakes, rivers, forests, gently rolling hills and farm land. Illinois has the nation's toughest state mine-safety and land reclamation laws, and it shows. I've lost count over the years of the number of non-natives who've remarked about what a beautiful park, golf course, etc., is, not knowing that it is reclaimed land.

Please don't misunderstand me-- I'm all for clean, alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc.-- but I do think it's unfair to the coal industry to deny it a 'level playing field' with Big Oil.

[Recursion]

20. Old white voters are overrepresented in the House and Senate

The House both from gerrymandering and because we pack voters into dense urban cores anyways; the Senate because that's pretty explicitly what the Senate was designed for.

[newfie11]

23. I agree

My husband and I are seniors and I'm tired of hearing it's all my generations fault the Dems lost.
It's people that don't vote and why didnt they vote?
It's hard to get folks fired up when the media is controlled by the repugs. People are fed what they want you to hear.
If Dems would be the Dems of old that
Stood for something instead of caving and we had an honest media it might be different.
Grayson was reelected and Lord knows he speaks his mine. We need more like him to get people voting.
We also need to allow everyone in this country to vote, enough voter purging!

[JI7]

7. the United States does not belong to white people , and many latinos are americans also

[Major Hogwash]

79. Thank you for saying that.

I'm tired of all of the racist jabs that go unchallenged about Latinos not caring about this country.

[JonLP24]

6. There is the racist vote

I really couldn't tell you how to explain the numbers.

[ucrdem]

8. More like white Democrats suddenly have a problem voting.

State-by-state voter I.D. laws:

http://ballotpedia.org/State_by_State_Voter_ID_Laws

These laws are aimed at low-income, elderly, working and/or rural whites as well as non-whites and are blatantly unconstitutional. I imagine that most will eventually be struck down but it's going to take a while.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. A lot of truth here

I saw someone had posted somewhere that single women voters kind of"sank" the party. Well - they move a lot (especially professional/corporate types) as criteria for career advancement. Add them into your statement.

They want this as complicated as possible for anyone they have identified as "fun" to inflict pain on.

I've made that jump after the Ernst comment about "make them squeal". They are very sadistic people and they have a plan for pain. It starts with disenfranchising those they have deemed as unworthy.

[ucrdem]

15. "a plan for pain."

QFT!

[HereSince1628]

31. And, unfortunately, they are very motivated in their sadism.

The pattern in WI is that high voter turnout often means big vote for the teahad.

At least in WI, it's not possible to assume big turnout favors Dems. We had turnout way above the national average here in W, and it went pretty poorly for dems

Big turnout, especially in off-years, is more likely to mean the anti-welfare contingent is at the polls. They are mad as hell at the lazy people and the government that taxes them to support the lazy people.

[Nay]

41. We had a relatively large turnout in my VA district, and it didn't favor

the Dems. I agree that plenty of people voted, but don't assume that bigger turnout automatically means more Dems voted.

[JustAnotherGen]

10. I posted about KY in the AA Group yesterday

Not a total deep dive - but just deep enough. I've c/p'd more words from the article linked in the op.

"It was an election about nothing. Republicans made it an election about President Obama. That was their goal," he said. "Their mission was to turn out people who were angry, people who were displeased with the job the president has done."

It was a mistake for Democrats to distance themselves from the president, said Erik Smith, a former Obama campaign adviser and Democratic strategist. Democratic voters are not motivated to help candidates who were happy to be with Obama two years ago, but tried to avoid his presence this year, he said.

"I'm sure (it) led a lot of these voters to say, 'How is this candidate going to treat me in two years?'" he said.

The only states in which Democratic Senate candidates improved their overall support among whites were Minnesota, Oregon and Mississippi, a Southern state where Travis Childers managed to grow the Democratic share of the white vote from 8 percent in 2008 to 16 percent.

I kind of think blacks in KY kind of thought Grimes was a phony baloney fakey fake they couldn't trust.

I'm in NJ and as an outsider - that's how she came across.

You know - we might not like someone like Allen West around here at DU - but at least he is authentic.

[JonLP24]

13. I'm not sure what share of the electorate they were

but Grimes received 90% of the black vote. OK -- 8% a drop from 11% in 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/KY/senate/exitpoll

[JustAnotherGen]

14. That was still an 8% drop

Ive got all the numbers for all the KY races here -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=9533

You can go deeper district by district.

But it was a Senate exit poll.

The blacks still pressed the button to keep the State House Democratic.

I know I didn't vote for Freeholder. Voted for everything but that.


I also encountered Democrats in my rural NJ community who would vote for the Democratic council woman but not the former Republican Mayoral candidate. A borough of about 4500 people. There were about 1200 votes cast for the two council people. About 850 for the Mayor. The I-Candidate won - but not with the 508 votes for the Democratic Council candidate who lost by 22 votes.

My point - you don't HAVE to press every button on the voting machine.

Black voters in Kentucky inflicted pain on Rand Paul - now Kentucky is going to have to change to a caucus system to get around giving Paul job security while he runs for President. The Kentucky Reoublucan party has a hard row to hoe considering who the Governor is and the Democratic House thumbing its nose at the Republican Senate.

[JonLP24]

18. 3%

but hard to get into voter breakdowns at state legislature level. I do see some of those coal counties still went to Democrats

I think the coal counties were the reason she backed away -- state elections have nothing to do with national policy. It didn't help as McConnell won those counties anyway and turnout probably was depressed from the result of it.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. This I'm in agreement on for some demographics

I think the coal counties were the reason she backed away -- state elections have nothing to do with national policy.

But it does to black people - probably more than you realize.

Go back to our history in this country - we can't trust States to do the right thing - especially those of us whose parents were on the tail end of the great migration.

You had a better chance of meeting God in five minutes than ever hearing my dad say he would have ever have placed trust in the State Government of Alabama to look out for him as a citizen and a tax payer - and even after his last 30 years of his life in NY State - he'd say the same thing about Albany.

And a lot of those folks? They still live down there - and they see what's going on in this country.

They live with a pain inflicted on them (especially now - it's going to get worse) I can't even begin to imagine. Now how do we get poor whites to join with them in the next election? That's the key.

Is it - totally back off of energy? Because Keystone and the Penn East Pipeline are going to happen. So do we take the loss - and then go after - what?

[JonLP24]

32. I'm meaning the reason why those coal counties voted for a Democrat locally

but not Grimes.

As far as her strategy, she did very poor in those coal counties so she should have abandoned the strategy and run on the state health exchange resulted from Obamacare which is doing very well in Kentucky.

[kelliekat44]

16. Yes. RW-evangelical-racist-whites. They are the one who don't like the direction of the country.

Not about economics but about social, moral issues to them. I was roundly criticized for pointing this out but over next 24 months their agenda and their reasons for turning against the Dems in government will become starkly clear. We will not be able to overcome their activists and propaganda (largely under the radar among church-going homophobic, misogynistic, Islamaphobic, racist). Folks like Hagee, and Robertson with the stealth help of the C Street gang and your friendly Chamber of Commerce have it all under control. The first legal whack, as always, was taken with the least powerful of their targets with the wave of anti-voting, anti-civil rights movement that hit the left so swiftly we still haven't recovered from the shock of the SCOTUS decisions that helped usher in the latest trouncing at the polls. Well, we had some church folks get out there and help us with a movement that fought back but they weren't enough to overcome the power of the money and courts stacked against voting rights.

But in this next wave of RW phobic ass-hats we will lose even many of the black church folks that organized against the real voter suppression. The folks who really don't want to see gay marriages, women with choice, ore religious tolerance.
They will continue to win at the state and local levels and in national off-year elections because we can't get our young or Hispanic base motivated to vote in these elections. Our base will come out when the Presidency is on the line but they don't care or understand what is at stake in those state and local elections where the RW dominates...and they dominate not because of economic issues (although they will be taught to say that). They dominate because of social issues that have become more visible to them. And they will get a lot of help on the Islamaphobic side from Israeli actions in the ME. It is happening as we sit and bemoan at our computers.

If we ignore these reasons and do not organize an effective counter to them what you saw on the 4th is what you get for at least the next 20 years until the fascist wing of the GOP dies out. Our only hope lies in the under 50 and minority vote. We must find a way to motivate them again. The GOP has a movement started with the election of a few blacks and Hispanics but look at where these folks are on the social issues...that's your clue.

[JonLP24]

19. You got criticized for that?

Evangelicals are the Republicans strongest religious voting bloc. Romney had better support there than from Mormons.

A post-election survey conducted by Greg Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies found that nearly one-third of the total electorate in the 2014 midterms identified themselves as conservative Christians, Reed told attendees of a Faith & Freedom Coalition press conference on Wednesday announcing the poll. And, faith-based voters proved to have an even greater impact in the election of key Republican Senator-elects and helped the GOP take control of the Senate for the first time since 2006.

Reed highlighted Joni Ernst's victory in Iowa, where she replaced retiring Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, and David Perdue's victory in Georgia as two Senate elections that could not have been won without the help of the evangelical vote. Both candidates won by garnering just over 52 percent of the vote and both candidates benefited from campaign support from prominent social conservative Political Action Committees.

"The [evangelical] vote was critical in 2010, it was critical in 2012 and it was critical in 2014. If you look at where the Republican Party was on election night 2008 and you look at where it is today, without a muscular turnout of evangelical voters in these kinds of margins, it just simply does not happen," Reed said. "Joni Ernst just does not beat Bruce Braley. David Perdue does not avoid a runoff in Georgia yesterday."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-vote-played-key-role-in-republican-victories-data-shows-129197/

[Starry Messenger]

28. No, she got criticized for blaming gays for the right-wing victory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803

[JonLP24]

35. I guess that what she means by counter strategy

Not effective as it helps in the general election.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158102/lgbt-americans-skew-democratic-largely-support-obama.aspx

A counter strategy would have to deal with the turnout of evangelicals and shouldn't be done by killing turnout of groups who get us elected. Especially since it isn't an issue anymore. I don't hear much Republican opposition anymore.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Thank you for pointing that fact out. That OP was disgusting and offensive.

It is partially defining of DU that such things are allowed here.

[kelliekat44]

54. That's how you chose to take it. The proof will be in the SCOTUS pudding as these cases

now look like they are heading there thanks to the recent weasel appellate court decisions. And I will bet that "States' Rights will win. WE all want progressive legislation and issues to pass and they won the day as ballot issues. But the voters don't want to elect the people who support or press those ideas. I guess it is too complicated for some to understand.

[Jamastiene]

57. Most people in America support gay marriage.

Even in my piss poor little rural southern county, gay marriages are happening. The KKK didn't show up to those weddings. Westboro didn't show up. The locals didn't show up and protest either, because it's about damn time those who got married had the right to get married.

You are full of shit and just want to blame gay people. Are we too "brazen" for you with our "agenda" of wanting equal rights? This southern gay woman knows you are full of shit.

[Aerows]

91. I noticed you deleted your post, but I got it from Google cache.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803

These are your exact words:

"Ok, i am going to say this and hope it is taken as an observation and not a position.
There was a sizable backlash tonight against the President and his policies on gay rights. Under the radar in many states that we should have won ...like Iowa where idiot Ernst won...and many other places the backlash by religious right paid off for the GOP. Take Maine....

The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future. It's not that there are many more LBGT folks around now...it's just that they have come out of the closets and the religious right does not like to face up to their existence..even among themselves. This issue alone cause many religious blacks and Latinos to stay home or to not vote for Dems. The same is true for the civil rights issue. The GOP knows there are many black voters out here...they just don't want to have to accept them or see them.

There have always been Log Cabin GOP but they were rarely publicized and thus they were embraced by the GOP under the radar. And there always have been many LBGT in the closets of power but they did not cause the GOP to become uncomfortable because they were in the closet.

How can I say these things...I attend church, I have many LBGT in my family. I hear the conversations, I see the voting patterns. It is even a bigger issue than abortion believe it or not. And the sad truth is that after having gained new rights under this President many in the LBGT community went out and voted for the GOP candidate last night.

No offense meant but I know this for a fact among my many LBGT friends."

I suspect you don't have many if any LGBT friends, because NONE of my gay friends, nor myself voted Republican.

[m-lekktor]

105. thanks. i didn't see this when i made my other post in this thread. n

[bullwinkle428]

89. Thanks for copying that OP, as I didn't see it the first time around. If there

was ever a ban-worthy post at DU, that would be it.

[Aerows]

92. She then proceeded to delete it days later

to hide the evidence, but I got it from Google cache so all can see what she really thinks.

[Starry Messenger]

94. Totally agreed.

Stunningly hateful.

[m-lekktor]

100. wow

Even though the OP is deleted I can tell what was said by the responses. Good to know what that person thinks of me and my fellow LGBTers for future reference.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. A qoute from that poster Tuesday:

"The openness and brazenness of the LBGT agenda and the media flaunting of gay marriages all across the country cost Dems dearly and threatens to do so in the future."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803

[kelliekat44]

82. More proof of what i tried to say:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-right-wing-christians-believe-gop-lies

[Aerows]

107. You can link to everybody on the planet.

It doesn't change the fact that what you did was blame the LGBT community for the failure of the Democratic party to get elected.

Because we are uppity enough to want civil rights, like getting married and being treated like equals in society. The NERVE of us brazen, flaunting folks.

Blaming those that REPEATEDLY get out and vote for Democratic candidates is a losing strategy. I have no idea what makes you think that LGBT people DON'T vote, and DON'T vote Democratic, but I suspect you don't have many gay friends, as much as you would like for us to think that "Oh, lot's of gay people agree with my fantasy!".

[Jamastiene]

110. We have your number now and know what you really think.

You can post all the anecdotal links you want, but you are still against the GLBT community, yourself. That speaks volumes more about you than it does the GOP. We already knew what they think. Now, we know what you think too.

[kelliekat44]

55. Maybe the comments at this discussion on the subject will enlighten the point I am trying to make.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/same-sex-marriage/

Just because I point out that the GOP and their RW phones won, doesn't mean I am one or even that I support them.

[Jamastiene]

56. Uhm, I didn't see it at the time, but I saw it just now.

You were criticized for your bigoted OP. You need to own that. Or am I being too "brazen" for you by saying that? I have zero respect for someone like you who would call me "brazen" and say I have an "agenda" simply because I want equal rights. Your mentality disgusts me.

[Aerows]

93. She deleted it later because of criticism of her bigoted comments

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025764803

Here's the cache version of EXACTLY what she said.

[treestar]

21. White voters getting more racist

Don't know that we'd want to appeal to that.

[HereSince1628]

34. Or racist white voters are increasing their voter turn out.

in relation to non-racist voters who are staying the same, or decreasing in their turnout.

That change in the arithmetic could produce a similar result.

[Android3.14]

22. No. Democratic racism is a stupid scapegoat

The Ds failed because our current leadership, all the way to Obama's desk, has failed to promote Democratic values, eroded basic civil liberties and colluded with corporate interests at the expense of the US citizenry.

[newfie11]

24. Exactly nt

[Man from Pickens]

39. stop talking sense

people are trying to racist the vote away here

This is very simple. Voters were not racist in 2008 and 2012 when Obama was on the ballot, but were extremely racist in 2010 and 2014 when he wasn't on the ballot. Voter suppression and vote fraud was not occurring in 2008 and 2012 but did occur in 2010 and 2014.

Also, the electorate was smart in 2008 and 2012, but dumb and ignorant in 2010 and 2014.

Clearly, the solution here is anti-racist IQ Wheaties and anyone who says otherwise isn't a true progressive.

[JonLP24]

40. Racist vote was there in all 4 elections

Not saying it was a significant voting bloc, the electorate that shows up in Presidential election didn't show up for the midterms. Lack of press is probably why.

Voter suppression went on in all 4 elections which were most certainly racist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-browne-dianis/top-10-voter-suppression_b_2348574.html

[alarimer]

43. Yes, blaming voter apathy on racism is nonsense.

They stayed home because they had nothing to vote for. Young people are (by and large) not as racist as their elders. But they had no reason to turn out.

I'm not happy about voter apathy, either. I'm a little apathetic, too, for the reasons you state. I whined and complained but voted anyway. And even threatened not to vote at many points along the way. But in the end, I held my nose and did. It gave me great pleasure to vote against Bill Cook and Thom Tillis.

People suffered and DIED for the right to vote. And now, they are still having to fight for it, what with all the voting restrictions the wing nuts have put in place.

But you are right about the leadership. I hate that the best I could do was vote against someone, rather than for someone.

[Eleanors38]

88. But politics means attacking, not leading, the polis.

[840high]

102. ...^ that

[Puzzledtraveller]

104. something about a river in Egypt.

That's where most DU is, you are correct but the "eyes shut tight and the fingers in the ears, la, la, la," group can't be bothered with the truth.

[avebury]

25. Democrats have a problem with voters period.

It is hard to get people to support a party that refuses to take strong stands and fight for them. When you put liberal policies (for ex. increasing minimum wage, legalizing pot, etc.) on ballots they have a pretty good chance of passing. But candidates just can't sell themselves to the voters as being willing to fight for the issues that most people actually believe in. If a candidate does not believe in the issues enough to fight tooth and nail to win, why should he/she win?

I can take a loss in the short term if I can see an actual plan to achieve victory in the long term. As it is, I see very little that changes over time and that is was costs Democrats the ability to keep the Senate and win over the House. The only reason we keep the WH is that the Republicans tend to put up a clown car during Primary Season and their candidates tend to eat their own. At that point, it is hard for even a lot of normally ignorant voter to vote Republican for the WH.

I want to support the Democratic Party but way to often they leave me wanting to slap them up against the side of their collective heads. Nice guys seldom win in the long run. I vote for them because they are the lesser of 2 evils because they have gone so far over to the right I don't see them as really fighting for Democratic Principles, for the masses, and for liberal causes. I don't care if it gets ugly, I want a Democratic Party that is ready to grow a backbone and fight and claw their way to victory not kowtow and try to come across as the rational party because the Republicans will continue to walk all over them.

I do vote but I can also understand why many do not. Votes are not automatically given but must be earned and part of what the Democratic Party needs to get better at is driving home the consequences of Republican domination in blunt terms. Time is long past to start driving the fear of God into the voters because the Republicans have been doing that for a long time already.

[MarianJack]

27. Democrats DO seem to wory too much about what Rush Limpballs is going to say!

Personally, I'd be happier with Democratic candidates and office holders who go out of their way to TRY to antagonize me "tonnage on loan from GOD!". That asshole has been the de facto Republican/teabagger leader since he visited the White House in (I think) 1991 and Bush the first (as opposed to Bush the worst) carried his overnight bag in for him. He probably got a hernia from the weight of Rush's drugs...YIKES!

PEACE!

[Eleanors38]

90. I agree, though we don't really put the "fear of god"

into voters: We merely offer a pocket full of mumbles... and contempt when it doesn't go "our way," whatever that is.

[MarianJack]

26. So basically what they're saying is that 2014 was...

...the year of the angry white male Part 2 (1994 was Part 1). Of course, EVERY year marks the re-appearance of the angry white Republican/teabagger!

Did you ever want to see the wedding pictures from a teabagger wedding? My guess id that it would be a gang of scowling, drooling rednecks posing with their guns. Of course, the bride would have to be holding a pistol because she'd need 1 hand free to hold her bouquet!

PEACE!

[merrily]

29. Divide and conquer. Let's just keep slicing the big tent into shreds.

If gay ballot initiatives lose, it's the fault of African American Democrats.

If turnout is not good, it's the fault of liberal Democrats (no!), maybe even just DUs liberals. or young people

If Democrats campaign as though they never heard of Obama or Obamacare and lose, it's because they focused on women, maybe only white women. And old people all turned into Republicans.

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Anyone ever watch Milk? Anyone ever hear the expression,"Divided we fall?"

Meanwhile, over at November 4, while we're busy blaming one Democratic constituency after another, Republicans are pretending to be the party of diversity. I wonder which is the better election strategy?

[geek tragedy]

36. Suddenly? Of course, the national numbers are somewhat thrown off by

the fact that white southerners are so fanatically rightwing.

The party does need to do better with white voters in the midwest and west. White voters in the old slave states are pretty much a lost cause, with the possible exceptions of Virginia and Florida.

[NaturalHigh]

38. "Do Democrats suddenly have a problem with white voters?"

No, white voters are just the scapegoat this year for lousy candidates and people who don't vote.

[Moondog]

64. This ^^^^

[Tuesday Afternoon]

98. There were some good people running they just don't know how to campaign and Yes,

People need to vote. It is a Civic Duty.

[840high]

103. +1

[Iggo]

42. Suddenly?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

44. We've had an increasing problem with white voters since '80

[Kaleva]

70. I think it goes further back then that.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

74. OK 1880, but that's my final offer

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. The last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote in a two person presidential race was LBJ./NT

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Apparently not in Oregon, which is largley white and also largely Democratic.

I get the feeling when we win elections, the Back East Down South types discount our victory as not being in 'the real America'. This sort of OP cheeses me off. It's racist shit being used to excuse shitty candidates losing poorly run campaigns in States with lots of election chicanery, suppression, long lines that the citizens do nothing about year after year....

[Aerows]

109. I'm in the Deep South

I went out and voted. I'm a lesbian.

I didn't vote for Republicans, I took neighbors to the polls. (In Mississippi, no less, where we actually made more percentage point gains that any state in the Deep South).

But yeah, it was the gay vote, the horrible you are a racist vote, and the "I'm only voting Democratic because I hate Democrats so much!1!" that cost D's the election.

What will they come up with next? "You don't buy the right kind of toilet cleaner, so you cost us the Senate!"

[stillwaiting]

49. 96, 89, and 83%!

Am I reading that graph correctly? It's a bit confusing when matched up with the other chart right next to it.

Those statistics are unbelievably depressing for me.

[GoCubsGo]

50. No. They have a "money in politics" problem.

Most of the money is going to the other side, which allowed them to control the message. And, the message was "It's Obama's fault your life sucks, and you're going to get Ebola or die at the hands of ISIS because of him and those DEMONCRATS!" It plays right into the hands of all the ignorant dummies who don't know how their government works.

[Autumn]

51. I would say the party has a problem with Liberals.

The party also has a real problem getting their message across. This year they had a problem with Hispanics here in Colorado.

[Capt. Obvious]

52. Suddenly?

[Awsi Dooger]

59. In other news, lousy quarterbacks have problem winning Super Bowls

Nobody here wants to hear it, but moderates are a necessary evil among sustaining percentages among the white vote. It's like eating foods you don't like because they are good for your health.

Republicans may have demographic issues with the white vote as a slipping percentage of the electorate but we counter by nominating candidates that white voters -- rightly or wrongly -- deem too liberal for their tastes. The new media money realities contribute to that dynamic.

[hedgehog]

61. 1968 called - it wants its mantra back.

[davishenderson265]

66. Its not sudden. Has been this way for years.

It got worse since Obama got elected.

[Kaleva]

68. The last Dem candidate for president to win the white vote was LBJ in '64

[Kaleva]

71. Some recall when the white Southerners hated the party of Grant & Sherman so much..

that they'd vote for liberal egg head Adlai Stevenson over war hero Ike.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Those numbers need to be broken down a bit further

turnout was very low (30%? something like that) and a majority of voters were over 50. Do older white voters in Southern states have a problem with a black President? Maybe. Does that mean the Democratic party has a problem attracting white voters? Not necessarily, at least not based on the narrow demographic represented in the midterms.

[ctaylors6]

73. The turnout varied by state

though. The turnout was about the same or greater in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina - as well as NH, Maine, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado. Most of the places there held competitive races.

[applegrove]

75. This is why the GOP constantly post

"white privilege" threads on the DU. It is a wedge.

[Nye Bevan]

77. I'm not sure that *all* of the "white privilege" threads here are posted by Republican trolls,

looking to divide and conquer. But obviously many of them are. Looking at any of these threads it is obvious that this is a highly effective strategy to sow discord among white Democrats.

[applegrove]

81. They stir the pot and then some Dems

get caught up in the issue.

[YoungDemCA]

97. Yeah a lot of Republican trolls are People of Color

[Number23]

76. To reiterate others -- Suddenly?

[moondust]

78. Six years of racist propaganda and agitation, both subtle and overt,

have had an effect on some voters particularly in some northern states IMO.

[marmar]

85. Interesting stats.......

...... Clearly the white vote numbers are exacerbated by the vote in the South.

[True Blue Door]

86. I doubt it's anything unique to whites.

This is a common reaction among a privileged group who are losing demographic ground.

Still, it is painful to be part of a group that behaves disgracefully out of depraved identity politics.

I'm inclined to just petulantly deny these fuckers even are white. They're grey, like Soviets and Nazis.