How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

Huzzah!

The Democratic Party may also wish to underscore the fact that actual job statistics do not justify the racial resentment by less-educated Whites' that is being contrived and promoted as a divisive political ploy:

 

Case in point ^

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...educated-whites.530435/page-6#post-1068959467

The irony is this member is complaining about Clinton and Goldman, while donald flooded the government with Goldman appointees after taking office.

 

The Democratic party has been the party of the working class. Union members have gravitated to Democrats as long as I can remember. In 2011, the Democrats made a conscious effort to favor a mass invasion of illegal aliens, lowering wages for their constituents. Obama still got the inner city minority vote and the suburban union vote in 2012, but by 2016, the working class constituents finally realized they were betrayed. It was about as fast a transformation as I've ever seen. In Ohio, Democrats win Cleveland and surrounding county (Cuyahoga) but lose the rest of the state. But the rest of the state seldom makes up for the Cuyahoga County victory. Not true in 2016. I think there is a similar, but more extreme situation in PA with Philadelphia and surrounding county being such a strong Democrat stronghold that the rest of the state is usually irrelevant. Not so in 2016.

It was all a very conscious effort to hose the working class in favor of illegal aliens. Hispanics here legally and other minorities suffered collateral damage. That's why the Center for American Progress commanded Democrats to reject any budget offer that didn't include amnesty for illegals as a stand alone issue. Democrats' only chance for 'electoral success', according to the Progressive fascists, is for illegals to overrun the polls.

 

Not following your meaning. Do you agree or disagree that a higher education, even VoTech, is a path to a better job?

I researched my "retirement" job for about 10 years. I looked at both electrician and plumbing. In the end, I chose welding and took over a year's worth of night classes learning the skill. At the moment, it's hobby, but in a couple years, I'll be a part-time welder/part-time fisherman.

 

They were hosing the working class in favor of banksters and their corporate donors, which started with NAFTA in 1994. Obama deported 2,000,000 people who you would call illegal. If the democrat strategy was "for illegals to overrun the polls" deporting them wasn't a very good strategy. Do you have any video of illegals overrunning the polls?? Might be entertaining.

 

I can't speak for every case, but the most common cause is an authoritarian-follower personality. Those occur in all education brackets.

https://theauthoritarians.org/donald-trump-and-authoritarian-followers/#more-21

Why does that need an explanation? The OP was about white voters.

They grew up under authoritarian regimes, training them to be authoritarian-followers, so now they get their authoritarianism fix with the Republicans. They didn't want communist masters, but they did want some kind of master.

Also, it used to be Republicans were, at least in theory, rabidly anti-communist. That was long ago, however. Young people these days can't even remember when the Republican party wasn't composed of willing Russian stooges.

That doesn't make your side look good. It says that unbiased people can be swayed by the facts, but ideologically rigid conservatives are immune to facts.

 

I do agree that it is a path to a better job, but for most jobs college doesn't teach you anything you couldn't have learned on the job or on your own. The diploma from a college just guarantees the employer you are not a complete dolt.

High school diploma should be enough for most entry level jobs, but they have gutted the high school curriculum so much that is not really the case. Public schools boast about how many of their attendees graduate and that is a problem. The goal should be the quality of their graduates, not the quantity.

Me, I'm mechanically inept. I'd burn the house down if I had to weld and if I fix the toilet myself I am bursting with pride.

 

The Obama administration has spent at least $18.5 million to fly “unaccompanied children” caught crossing into the country illegally to locations inside the United States, according to newly obtained figures.

The numbers, shared with FoxNews.com by the Senate subcommittee on immigration, were provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in response to questions from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

The numbers shed light on the extent of a program that has drawn scrutiny not just from lawmakers but the federal courts, amid concerns the U.S. government is effectively aiding smugglers.

“This shows how fundamentally flawed our approach to immigration enforcement has been in the Obama administration,” a Senate aide who has seen the questions to and answers from ICE Director Sarah Saldana told FoxNews.com.

The administration, which continues to grapple with waves of Central American migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and has gone to great lengths to ensure the safety of minors, has defended the practice as appropriate.

But it comes with a cost.

The ICE figures show that from June 8, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2015, ICE spent $4.8 million on charter flights for the children (ICE could not provide figures before that period). From March 2009 to Sept. 30, 2015, ICE spent $13.7 million on commercial flights for unaccompanied minors utilizing funds appropriated to ICE.

In total, the cost reaches at least $18.5 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-illegal-immigrant-children-across-us.html

Here's the picture --- on the way to the polls:

 

So basically the democrats better at taking other people's stuff and giving it to others.

 

It should be noted that less-educated Whites favouring the Republican Party is a shift that actually predated the rise of Trumpery.

Winning back this demographic will require that the Democratic Party address needs that Trump exploited, but were not being given proper prioritization before Trump seized control of the GOP.

 

What these people need is an education. Then we could have an intelligent conservative party (if that's not too much of an oxymoron).

 

​

 

And remember: there were a lot of "public surveys" that found Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide with the NYT reporting she had a 98.5% likely hood of winning.

 

haha I love so called educated people trying to figure out how outsmart so called dumb people. Hmmm if I were them Id ponder that for a bit.

 

Good grief!

Did you even bother to RESEARCH that allegation?

EXIT POLLS have much HIGHER margins of ERROR rates than regular polls.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

The total DIFFERENCE that you are claiming is a mere 5% and that is well WITHIN the MoE of those exit polls.

So your allegation is based entirely upon an exit polling ERROR rather than FACTS!

 

Putin hacked her calendar --- removed campaign events in rural PA, OH, MI and WI.

 

Democrats need to learn that class warfare is as dead as the dodo in the United States and stop trying to use it to win. Most people in the US don't hate the rich, they want to be the rich.

Republicans are better for working class Americans. Republican policies (which haven't actually been implemented by any Republican since Ronald Reagan, so don't hold up Bush I, Bush II, or Trump as actual Republicans) favor freedom for the marketplace, which invariably makes people richer, puts more people to work, and grows the economy. Democratic policies are all about government control of the economy, which makes people poorer, puts more people out of work, and damages the economy. (These are the same policies Bush I and Bush II followed. Bill Clinton was a better Republican than Bush I or Bush II.) And then all the other Democratic policies, like being pro-immigration, pro-affirmative action, pro-homosexuality, and now pro-transgenderism actually hurt white, working class people.

Except for cutting FICA, all of these are bad for the economy and therefore bad for working class people. Raising the minimum wage in particular hurts the poorest people by pricing them out of the market.

Bad for working class people. Who do you think employs people, poor people? One of my favorite examples of unintended consequences, the Democrats raised taxes on so-called "luxury goods" like yachts back in the 1990s. But what ended up happening was instead of raising revenue, it depressed the sale of luxury goods, and guess who ended up getting hurt? Rich people? No, middle class, working people, the people who actually built the yachts and other luxury goods that the taxes were raised on. So the tax, in an almost unprecedented move, was repealed. The same thing happens with income taxes, but it's harder to see.

Very bad for working class people. Investments are what drive economic growth and job creation. Taxing them means less growth and fewer jobs.

Estate taxes fell heaviest on working class people who inherited their parents' farms or businesses, since rich people incorporate themselves and thereby avoid the estate tax altogether. Repealing the estate tax was one of the best things to do for working class people ever.

And cost millions more their health insurance or raised their rates to unaffordable levels. The health care system is broken because of government intervention. If we could get government out of health care, everyone could afford it, and insurance wouldn't be nearly as expensive.

Failure to understand basic economics. Government cannot employ anyone without taxing someone else. Every dollar the government takes out of the economy is one less dollar someone else has. Government projects put as many people out of work as put people to work because the government cannot create wealth. Only mining, manufacturing, and farming create wealth.

But not cut benefits. It's great to want to reduce taxes, but if you aren't going to reduce spending, then you're just borrowing the money from future taxes.

Ironic, since it was the Democrats' housing policies that caused the Great Recession in the first place. It's funny how every government program that fails generates two or more government programs to fix it. It never dawns on the government worshippers that it's government programs that are the problem.

It was Democrats, not Republicans, that bailed them out when they collapsed following Democrat policies. Republicans would have let them fail.

Another case of a government created problem spawning government created solutions. If government didn't guarantee student loans in the first place, there wouldn't be so much student debt now.

So what? Unions are only good for union members, bad for everyone else.

So what? Are rich people somehow more evil than other people? Are rich people less entitled to keep their own money? Are rich people less deserving than other people?

See above.

Government spending doesn't grow the economy. As for reducing spending *play sad violin*.

Some studies have shown that people stay unemployed for as long as their benefits last, so reducing the length of benefits gets people back to work faster.

Student loans were exempted from bankruptcy laws back in the 1970s by the Dems when med students were abusing the system, declaring bankruptcy before making big bucks. Now it's mostly Dems with worthless liberal arts degrees who need help getting out from under student debt.

Good luck with that.

 

You need a give away. Like you give to anyone but white people.

Funny thing is, if you offer white people anything, you will be racist and fracture your "everyone against white people" coalition. You can't race bait then try to appease the people you race baited against, in front of the races you told they were victims of.

 

Stop vilifying them 24/7 would be a good start. But that won't happen, the left has 0 self awareness.

 

Ironic coming from supporters of the clueless BLOTUS who has the least self awareness of any POTUS in my entire lifetime.

 

Yet democrats are banking on having the votes once demographics change which they assume will favor them. Right? And most voters even at that time will be working people. And yet do you really believe that working people will continue to vote for a party that does not represent them? The DP is representing the upper middle class and then the elites. And they have no plans to change that.

Point is, to assume changing demographics will serve the DP is just an assumption. And while there is little or no coverage, there is a growing progressive movement online, which rejects selling out working americans by slave labor globalism, economic globalism, as more and more people realize it is just another scheme to create a richer upper and a poorer lower class. Even unions have voiced the idea of a 3rd party to represent working americans. For the DP is not serving anyone who is an average american. Neither is the GOP, regardless of what some might say here on this forum.

Question is, how much longer can the DP depend upon identity politics, and what happens when blacks, whites, hispanics, finally realize, and that is growing as we speak, that the DP does not serve them and has no intention of doing so? I am talking about the people who are not college grads, who work for a living. How many americans are we talking about here in that group?

And there is no way in hell I could believe any poll that says the economic suffering of trump supporters did not play a large role in electing trump. That it instead was about race. Bu tthen I did not believe the polling before the general that had hillary winning. If a poll does not reflect the reality that you are seeing, you better stick with your own observations over polls. I did that and called the election for trump, right on this very forum. But I have always placed more importance on my own observations than those of others who might have an agenda, and generally always do.

 

Far be it for me to give Natty Bumpo too much credit, but he's basically correct in the sense that Demography, in a general sense, is destiny.

As the great Lee Kuan Yew said, " In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

So identity politics trumps (pardon...) public policy and economic interests. The 2016 election was a great example. Trump was the only candidate talking about actual economic policies. Hillary ran on shout outs to various groups. I suspect we'll see more, not less of that in the future.

 

Well, IMO, identity politics will fail, at some point. And that will be driven by simple economic suffering. Given what economic globalism is, and its intent, this is inevitable. So, I do not think that the changing demographics will work for the dems, if they remain where they are in only representing the upper middle and the elites. And I cannot see them changing, to represent the workforce of americans.

Of course as robotics and AI displace more and more workers, those that are not capable of , or are just not needed anymore by the economic model, the DP and their welfare will of course get them the voters. For you are voting with your stomach and not ideology. So as long as the DP presses for welfare, while the GOP wants to cut it, get rid of it, we should not be surprise if at some point in this economic mess, that the GOP just dies on the vine. The DP is banking on this, IMO. And this paradigm will get rid of the need for identity politics for the DP. For hispancs, whites and blacks will be suffering alike.

 

We aren't just guessing here. We do have California as a great laboratory. It has the demographics that most of the country will have in 3 decades or so, so we can see what to expect. The Democratic Party dominates and the GOP, as you said, just died "on the vine." It has the worse income inequality in the country and the worst school performance.

 

You do have a great point. Whether this plays out across all of america is the question. Ca has always been, "weird". And the people different from many parts of america.