Are you moving to Canada when Trump and/or Clinton is elected President?

[Elok]

I don't know what poll you're looking at, but I'm skeptical that polls published today fully take into account news from this weekend.

Yeah, I was going by the RCP aggregate, which includes older polls. Still, that aggregate shows a rather sharp uptick. The lead can't diminish much more without Trump actually taking it himself.

[Giancarlo]

Michelle Obama would have been awesome running for President. She and her husband are more popular than anyone else in this country. I am sure she would say absolutely not. I wouldn't want to be President either. What a terrible job.

[kentonio]

I think he has inflammed minorities so much, that he will get crushed in the end. This is my feeling, but I do base it on what he has said. White voters no longer win elections anymore in this country, especially not white males. Someone has hated it when I have said this but it is true.

I keep hearing this from involved Dems, and its little more than wishful thinking. Whites still account for 63.7% of the US population. If you don't win a large part of that vote, then you don't win the election, it's not difficult maths. It becomes even clearer when you add in the following graph.



There is obviously a huge and fast growing rebalancing of the racial demographics in the US, and I'm sure there will indeed come a time when the white vote isn't dominant, but you're not there yet. It's also pretty dumb to piss off a huge voting block by basically telling them you don't care about their votes. The GOP have been doing that more and more with minorities and it'd be REALLY nice if the Dems could resist the urge to try and trump them by doing it to the majority.

[Giancarlo]

Um, but minorities turn out more in general elections and Trump has pissed off women, including white women. Oh and Obama did not win white voters at all... And certainly not in 2012. He lost white males by a significant margin. In fact, Mitt Romney won white males by the same percentage Reagan did in 1980, yet he lost. Your argument doesn't carry any weight.

Not buying it sorry.

[kentonio]

Um, but minorities turn out more in general elections and Trump has pissed off women, including white women. Oh and Obama did not win white voters at all... And certainly not in 2012. He lost white males by a significant margin. In fact, Mitt Romney won white males by the same percentage Reagan did in 1980, yet he lost. Your argument doesn't carry any weight.

Not buying it sorry.

Did you just fail to look at the chart I just showed you? Minorities in general do not turn out more than whites, African Americans turn out more than whites, and that's a very recent (2008-2012) development for which Obama running certainly had influence. When you put turnout against proportion of total voting population you get this..



White are heavily over-represented in electoral share, and it really doesn't matter whether you want to 'buy' that or not, because I'm not selling it, its just the cold facts.

You're focusing now on white males, but you started out with a wider statement about whites which simply isn't true. In 2008 Obama pulled 43% of the white vote, and in 2012 still managed 39%. Those aren't small numbers. That incidentally was with an almost complete sweep of the black vote and huge domination of all other racial demographics.

The point being that no you don't need to win the majority of the white vote to win the election, but you sure as hell need around 40% of it or you're done. Given how little the DNC bothers focusing on working class whites these days, its pretty safe to say that if the GOP were running anyone (sane) but Trump right now, Hillary would be in deep, deep trouble.

[Giancarlo]

I think Hillary will get more of the white female vote and Trump has done no favors with his favorability among women of all racial backgrounds. Remember, the bulk of white voters Obama did win were white women. Particularly single women. BTW, I need to double check but I recently saw Hillary winning in the upper 30s among white voters overall.

If you check my recent posting history, I always talk about angry white males. Take a look at a Trump rally... you don't see many women there. And Latinos will be turning out in record numbers because of the fear of Trump and his idiotic policies. He has even advocated destroying any form of legal process for people to get their papers.

As far as the GOP and anybody sane... Uhhhh... There is sanity in that party?

[kentonio]

The logical answer to angry white males is to ask why are white males angry, and why aren't the party doing enough to try and fulfil the needs they have. Because aside from the actual bigots, the Republicans aren't doing anything to meet their needs either, they're just providing the equivilent of a protest vote. There are many millions of working class white males who could (and should) be very firmly in the D column, and as Bernie showed they can be pulled back there with the right attention to their problems. If the DNC don't learn that lesson quickly, 2020 could be a very bad year.

[Giancarlo]

The logical answer to angry white males is to ask why are white males angry, and why aren't the party doing enough to try and fulfil the needs they have. Because aside from the actual bigots, the Republicans aren't doing anything to meet their needs either, they're just providing the equivilent of a protest vote. There are many millions of working class white males who could (and should) be very firmly in the D column, and as Bernie showed they can be pulled back there with the right attention to their problems. If the DNC don't learn that lesson quickly, 2020 could be a very bad year.

I don't really care about angry white males. They are usually angry because brown queers like me are getting equality. We need to focus on attracting more and more Latinos out to the polls really. You said they are still underrepresented in the country... That needs to change in a big way. With demographic changes, the angry white male will fall deeper into irrelevance.

I point to California. Next state to get more Latinos out is Texas. Of course, republicans don't want that. Hillary is not too far behind Trump there.

BTW, many of Bernie supporters were younger. I hope he can sway them to Hillary. He sure did try and over time he will succeed.

[kentonio]

I don't really care about angry white males. They are usually angry because brown queers like me are getting equality.

If you're grouping all (or even a majority of) white males into the 'angry white male' group, then no, that's not in the slightest what they are doing, and the idea they are is one of the most harmful and electorally disasterous things you could possible believe. Many of the same issues hurting minority working class people are also hurting white working class people.

We need to focus on attracting more and more Latinos out to the polls really. You said they are still underrepresented in the country... That needs to change in a big way. With demographic changes, the angry white male will fall deeper into irrelevance.

Attracting more Latinos to vote is great, but why does that require abandoning the white male vote? How do you think the DNC is harmed by trying to get both?

I point to California. Next state to get more Latinos out is Texas. Of course, republicans don't want that. Hillary is not too far behind Trump there.

Hillary shouldn't be behind Trump anywhere, in a world where the Democratic message was resonating with the people it should be resonating with, Trump would be a laugh track.

BTW, many of Bernie supporters were younger. I hope he can sway them to Hillary. He sure did try and over time he will succeed.

Many of Bernie's supporters were not young, the media attempt to paint his following as the white college crowd was little more than laziness. The interesting part of his campaign was that he was pulling in large numbers of older working class people who had previously voted Democrat but switched to Independent because they felt like the party no longer represented them. Those people are still out there and they're very susceptible to the right message, they just have to have hope again.

[Giancarlo]

If you're grouping all (or even a majority of) white males into the 'angry white male' group, then no, that's not in the slightest what they are doing, and the idea they are is one of the most harmful and electorally disasterous things you could possible believe. Many of the same issues hurting minority working class people are also hurting white working class people.

I am fine getting liberal white males and all working class people out to vote. Republicans are horrid for the working class. I, however, am talking about the groups voting for republicans at this point in time. Last poll I saw something around just 8% of Bernie supporters would vote for Trump (whereas 11-13% of republicans would vote for Hillary).

Attracting more Latinos to vote is great, but why does that require abandoning the white male vote? How do you think the DNC is harmed by trying to get both?

Abandoning the white male vote? Considering that is a group Obama didn't even get 40% in (perhaps even less just counting males), I think they abandoned us. So we go after major voting blocs.

Hillary shouldn't be behind Trump anywhere, in a world where the Democratic message was resonating with the people it should be resonating with, Trump would be a laugh track.

I think Michelle Obama reminded us very clearly what has to resonate. Her speech alone made the convention change its tune.

Many of Bernie's supporters were not young, the media attempt to paint his following as the white college crowd was little more than laziness. The interesting part of his campaign was that he was pulling in large numbers of older working class people who had previously voted Democrat but switched to Independent because they felt like the party no longer represented them. Those people are still out there and they're very susceptible to the right message, they just have to have hope again.

I am totally cool with getting those voters out for democrats. But the insinuation that many democrats left to become independent isn't really true. Either way, Trump does horribly among independents. Most of people who voted for him in the primaries were already registered republican and have been for a long time.

[Giancarlo]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-diaries-bernie-gets-booed-000000595.html

The DNC has calmed down and things are getting more cordial. This article even states Bernie and Hillary supporters are talking and had breakfast with each other. This is a good step. I think Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama both had something to do with that. Those two you will see more from I think.

[kentonio]

I think they abandoned us.

This right here is the crux of what is wrong with Democratic thinking right now (and in your defence I've heard it from literally dozens of other people too). The Democratic party is nothing more than an organization supposed to support people of similar political leanings to get elected. It's not a family or a team where anyone should feel any loyalty towards the brand. I keep hearing people say thata people who don't vote Dem are just automatically voting for the GOP (whether they actually vote, or even if they vote third paty) and terms like disloyalty thrown around endlessly. It's so toxic, and a perfect example of why the founders were so against political parties in the first place.

If people 'abandon' the party, it means the party doesn't represent them any more so they have no reason to vote for it. It's always the parties responsibility when it loses voters, not vice versa. People don't owe a political party a single thing.

I am totally cool with getting those voters out for democrats. But the insinuation that many democrats left to become independent isn't really true.

Yes it is true, and provably so.



The percentage of voters identifying as Dem has dropped 7 points since '88, with Indies rising 9 points, and the GOP dropping 5. Those are people who just don't see either party as representing their interests anymore.

[kentonio]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconvent...000000595.html

The DNC has calmed down and things are getting more cordial. This article even states Bernie and Hillary supporters are talking and had breakfast with each other. This is a good step. I think Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama both had something to do with that. Those two you will see more from I think.

Elizabeth Warren certainly, although she's getting to quite an advanced age. I suspect Michelle Obama is too smart to get involved any more in the dog and pony show.

[Giancarlo]

The Democratic party is being very inclusive. I just don't see the issue here. Some can't stand the fact that minorities are being represented.

And as far as those Gallup numbers, that brings into question their own viability as a poll. They aren't representative of the actual voting population.

[kentonio]

The Democratic party is being very inclusive. I just don't see the issue here. Some can't stand the fact that minorities are being represented.

What does 'inclusive' actually mean? The party is certainly better for working people than the GOP, but with the rise of neo-liberalism and the Third Way, the needs of working people has certainly fallen down the priority list as Clinton and now Obama administrations have shown. If you have a factory worker in the south who has lost several jobs after they were shipped to China or India, and has watching his living standards fall year on year, that person isn't likely to base his voting preference on which party is most in favour of looking after the interests of groups he is no part of. He might well have nothing but positive feelings towards minorities, but if he feels neither party gives a damn about him, eventually he'll stop giving a damn about the parties and indeed the whole political process. There's some strong indicators that say many of the poor people we spent years wondering why they vote GOP in the south and beyond, don't actually vote GOP, they largely just don't vote at all.

None of this is trying to say there aren't a large number of bigots out there of course, but if you assume anyone not going out to vote for the Dems is automatically a bigot, then you're doing it wrong.

And as far as those Gallup numbers, that brings into question their own viability as a poll. They aren't representative of the actual voting population.

Err, what? Those aren't peoples voting preferences, those are party identification numbers.