Democrats have never had a majority among white men since 1964

[eridani]

Coincidentally, that was the year of the Civil Rights Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/1964_b_102540.html

There are, of course, many more numbers which I could cite as well, but there is one number which has been overlooked but is also very important for this election. That number, or more accurately year, is 1964. 1964 was the year the Beatles first toured the US, the year Mickey Mantle hit his last World Series homerun, the year we passed the Civil Rights Act. In 1964, John McCain had yet to be captured by the Vietcong; Hillary Rodham campaigned for Barry Goldwater; and Barack Obama was a toddler. 1964 was also the last time a Democratic nominee for President carried majority of the white working class vote, measured by either income or education. Since that time, no Democrat has carried a majority of these voters.

During the 44 years since Democrats last carried a majority of lower income white voters, this group has been called the silent majority, Reagan Democrats, angry white men and various other labels, but they have proven to be a relatively dependable part of the Republican coalition, providing significant majorities for GOP candidates Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Obviously, losing this block of voters once central to the Democrat coalition was not easy for the party. However, 1964 was a long time ago and the party needs to move on and develop a strategy that recognizes this political reality. When, in the recent primary season, Hillary Clinton reinvented herself as the representative of the white working class voters, her surrogates and operatives dutifully reminded the media that the white working class is a key part of the Democratic base. Her campaign team was not simply spinning. They were saying what many Democratic strategists and leaders believe to be true, even in the face of 44 years of evidence to the contrary.

Clearly a Democratic nominee for president needs to win some chunk of the white blue collar vote, but winning a majority of that vote is not a realistic goal. Understanding this is essential because decisions about resource allocation are critical in campaigns. Strategic decisions to prioritize this vote over other segments of the electorate which might be easier to win could be very costly in November. By trying to win blue collar voters in the rust belt, Democrats overlook other potential growth areas for their party such as the west and, increasingly the south.

[muryan]

1. If each party holds its positions relatively the same

this dynamic will shift in the dems favor over the next few decades as the angry old racists start to die off in numbers.

[dkf]

2. Who would white men prefer for VP?

Jim Webb or Hillary Clinton?

Isn't this kind of a no-brainer?

[JoFerret]

3. Jim Webb

is a great guy and all that, but not for vp. Not yet at least.
And Sam Nunn is plain vomit-worthy.

I would vastly prefer Clinton in almost any job over either of them.

[dkf]

5. Goodness you are a white guy?

I don't know why I thought you were a female.

I think its because I usually see Jo as female and Joe as male.

Sorry about that.

[eridani]

6. Nunn is definitely vastly inferior

I dunno--maybe the fact that Webb has had a shorter career would give the wingnuts less to grab onto.

[Clark2008]

4. I saw that Pat Buchanan talked about that last night, but

I take umbrage with his assertation that all Southerners have voted Republican since 1984. Carter carried the South and so did Clinton - with or without white male votes. The South also had tons of fine Democratic senators - Al Gore, included.

The South really didn't "go Republican" until Newt Gingrich's Contract ON America in the late 1990s and again in 2000 when it went for Shrub.

I do agree that Democrats have increasingly overlooked the South and parts of the mid-West because of... I don't know, media assertations or biases that we're all "stupid" and can't understand the Democratic brand of populism :shrug: ... and Obama (who will be the nominee if the numbers hold out) needs to work at talking WITH my neighbors and not at them.

However, I think the No. 1 reason so many Southerners and mid-Westerners THINK they're Republican is because of conservative talk radio. Trust me, there is little choice in the "fly-over states" when it comes to news and information - it's ALL conservative with some pockets of liberal talk in Memphis and Atlanta and maybe Austin.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. I have a problem with Pat "Racist" Buchanon, Joe "dead intern" Scarborough, and other talking clowns

Pat's all about stopping democrats from winning.

I can only imagine Pat when Obama is elected.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. In other words, "resource allocation" dictates Dems abandon the New Deal and embrace anti-populism

That is exactly what the DLC and their neoliberal campaign insiders who control the GE campaign machinery told Gore and Kerry to do.

Interesting, no? Concede states and stop enacting policies that "try to cater to" the working class.

Just as you and the neoliberal Huffpost people (one of whom said
"Clinton's campaign is like when you go into a sushi bar and they cut off
the head of the shrimp, and it's still wriggling... you know what I mean")
are saying.

[eridani]

9. Agreed. Lots of white working class men would forget about racism

--and vote for Dems with populist policies.

[Freida5]

10. Don't count on women with Obama as the candidate.

So you won't get white men and you won't get women. hmmm He will lose.

[quaker bill]

11. a little more than half

of Obama's supporters have been women. Were this not so, Hillary would have won. Remember, women make up somewhere around 57 percent of Democratic party voters. Also, a good portion of Hillary's supporters have been men. Hillary has fairly consistently won the vote of women over 60, Barack has fairly consistently won the vote of women 40 and under and they have traded around parity for those between 40 and 60.

I don't think the ticket will have a problem in this regard, but it is true that some women will vote for McCain, just as many women voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Women will have a choice. They can vote for the candidate who believes that women actually own and control their reproductive systems, and the other candidate who thinks that the government has the controlling interest over this portion of their bodies. I expect that most will be able to figure it out. No doubt however, some will miss it.