How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

What a stupid woman and the dems really want to be associated with people like that?

 

Well they sure were not that smart to get a degree in liberal arts. Working at starbucks makes their degree useless. I have nothing against a liberal arts education. Just little demand for liberal artists is all. Being an educated low wage worker is not really intelligence in operation. Looks more along the lines of being a smart moron. Which is what I think of these post modernist social marxists that are called liberals and progressivess. Smart morons.

Once upon a time long ago I received a degree in Anthropology. Useless. So I had to go back and get a degree in banking and finance. So I could feed myself. I did not want to have to get a Phd in order to stand a chance of a job in that first major.

 

There are those who seek to avoid confronting the demographic reality, but political parties do so at their peril, especially in the short term.

 

Lie to them like ya do the elderly , dreamers, working class, blacks , women . Hell, you guys are pro's.

 

Your need to demean Americans with whom you disagree as being incapable of making intelligent decisions concerning their political affiliations is noted.

 

The answer is to develop economic policies to may attract them and a clear national security that makes sense and then spend sufficient time engaging them so that they understand the ramifications of both the republican and democratic platforms. The party tended to leave the 'splaining' and much of the outreach to unions while the percentages of these while blue collar workers who are unionized has dwindled. We got very lazy and complacent.

On the other hand, we don't really want to attract those Trump voters who are susceptible to the kind of divide- and -conquer and scapegoating strategies that the GOP has used. If the voter can be easily persuaded that blacks, women, the poor, and Hispanics are the enemy, lets just let them go. Efforts to placate or coddle them, will only muddy our brand, and corrode the foundations of our movement to be inclusive and progressive. Leave Archie Bunker alone to stew in his resentments and vote for whoever he chooses. Edith, Mike and Gloria will vote with us regardless. .

 

We always compare under educated whites as not having sense enough to vote. Why is the level of education never a factor with surveys of non white voters? Are they all college grads?

 

Per the first chart it appears as though 66% of whites who voted for the BLOTUS still support him.

If we go back to the final exit polling we discover that he obtained 58% of the white vote that comprised 70% of the total 137.5 million votes.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

70% of 135.7 = 96.25.

58% of 96.25 = 55.8.

66% of 55.8 = 36.8 million less educated whites who voted for the BLOTUS.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

Alternatively we can apply the same math to the total white adult population of the nation which comes in just under 193 million and shrinking.

58% of 193 = 112.

66% of 112 = 74 million less educated whites of whom only about half bothered to vote for the BLOTUS.

Out of a total adult population of 250 million that means his white support is around 30% primarily made up of less educated whites. What are the odds that his remaining support comes from the less educated in other races too?

The 2014 voter turnout was around 36% which is where the math starts to look rough for the GOP going into November.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

If the total number of registered voters is 235 million then 36% would mean 85 million votes will be cast in 2018. Even if all 36.8 million less educated white voters who support the BLOTUS turn up at the polls they are going to have a hard time holding on to the Congressional majorities. By all accounts the Dems have the motivation to GOTV and are running ahead of the GOP by 14% on average in all of the special elections since 2016.

So addressing the OP question of the Dems trying to win back the white less educated voters it would appear as if the answers are that it would be difficult to do given their racial motivation for supporting the BLOTUS and the Dems don't appear to need those votes to win going by the current momentum.

 

Why... the russkies... the russkies... and Putin had personally carried Trump over the finish line!

 

If BLOTUS supporters are motivated by race then the Dems don't have anything to offer them. In fact it would be a mistake to appeal to those prejudices and bigotry since it would alienate the rest of the voters. This nation does not need two parties both trying to grab the majority of the race motivated voters.

The demographics are such that the BLOTUS demographic are reaching their Sell By dates and will become less and less relevant with each coming election cycle. That is a problem for the GOP and the Dems will do better by appealing to the growing demographics instead.

 

Demographics is democratic destiny.

Why some Trump fanatics seem to demean the less-educated that rallied to his support is odd.

Acknowledging their academic attainment is an empirical statistic, not a pejorative.

 

You should try saying what you write in a mirror before posting.

Since you clearly think "Trump's beloved fans" = "less-educated White Americans, particularly older males", your claim the Democratic Party believes in diversity is proved to be untrue. How can a group claim to be diverse when it clearly spurns people based on race, gender and education levels?

 

L

You mean like the OP?

 

You must be confusing me with someone else. The subject of the thread, "How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?" acknowledges the desirability of addressing the needs of this estranged demographic, even as it maintains its diverse appeal.

 

Why you need to cast an empirical demographic statistic as a revilement is confusing.

The reality is that less educated Whites support Trump in impressive numbers, and Democrats should be addressing their needs to win them back.

 

You mean like the OP?

 

You could begin by not talking about "less educated whites".

You could try losing your arrogance and classism.

You're welcome.

 

The country already has two parties trying to grab a majority of race motivated voters. They are just trying to forge different majorities: GOP White, DEMs rainbow.

It is true the country is becoming less white and this is a probem for the GOP.

The GOP can still win as the Dems identity politics strategy is liable to fracture along identity lines: the Rainbow Coalition will unweave as the different coalition members fight each other for political power.

 

Whites without college degrees are bad people, the deplorables and the deplora babes.

The democrat party would be turning against its base to attempt to include these bad people.

 

How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites???

With party balloons.

 

The accurate demographic designation upsets some folks, but, whatever euphemism you may prefer, it is not an aspersion, and my noting the Democratic Party's need to address their plight and win them back is anything but dismissive of these folks.

 

Can't be done. Its "diversive appeal" is exactly resentment against whites. Nothing else unites Blacks and Mexicans who are otherwise competing for the same jobs and the same housing.

 

You are entitled to your fallacious opinion but to those who don't perceive others by skin pigmentation but rather as individuals who are their fellow Americans those "fracture lines" don't exist.

 

Another thing you Democrats could do is to lay out an actual agenda with specifics. Trump had the temerity to do that. Clinton did not.

Right now the Democrats only agenda is to be against Trump's agenda, but that is not your own agenda.

Again, you're welcome.

 

And such colorblind Demcrats are road-kill in Democratic identity politics. Colorblindness is a microagression:

------------
'UCLA says "Color Blindness," the idea we shouldn't obsess over people's race, is a microaggression. If you refuse to treat an individual as a "racial/cultural being," then you're being aggressive. This is a profound perversion of what has been considered the reasoned, liberal approach for decades—that treating people as "racial/cultural beings" is wrong and dehumanizing.

UCLA offers the following examples as "color blind" utterances that count as microaggressions:

"When I look at you, I don't see color."

"There is only one race: the human race."

"I don't believe in race."

Apparently such comments deny individuals' "racial and ethnic experience." But on a campus like UCLA a few decades ago, refusing to treat individuals as "cultural beings" would have been the right and good thing. Now, in an eye-swivelling reversal, the polar opposite is the case: to demonstrate your politically correct virtue you must acknowledge the skin color of everyone you meet.'

https://reason.com/archives/2015/08/05/speech-codes-and-humanism

--------------

The rule here is "white guys can't win, no matter what."