Dems Must Woo White Men To Win

Politico: Flight Of White Male Voters Away From Democrats Will Shape 2008 Election

(The Politico)  This story was written by David Paul Kuhn.

---

The 2008 election offers the most diverse array of presidential candidates in history. But this rainbow campaign will hinge on the most durable reality of American politics: White men matter most.

Every election cycle, a new slice of the electorate - suburban mothers, churchgoing Hispanics, bicycling Norwegians - comes into vogue as reporters and analysts study the polls and try to divine new secrets about who wins and why in American politics.

The truth is that the most important factor shaping the 2008 election will almost certainly be the same one that has been the most important in presidential elections for the past 40 years: the flight of white male voters away from the Democratic Party.

The hostility of this group to Democrats and their perceived values is so pervasive that even many people who make their living in politics scarcely remark on it. But it is the main reason the election 13 months from now is virtually certain to be close - even though on issues from the war to health care, Democrats likely will be competing with more favorable tail winds than they have enjoyed for years.

The "gender gap" has been a fixture in discussions about American politics since the early Reagan years. But it is usually cast as a matter of women being turned off by Republicans. By far the greater part of this gap, however, comes from the high number of white men - who make up about 36 percent of the electorate - who refuse to even consider voting Democratic.

In 2000, exit polling showed white women backed George W. Bush over Al Gore by 3 percentage points, but white men backed him by 27 percentage points. Four years later, with John F. Kerry carrying the Democratic banner, the margin was 26 points.

The Bush years have echoed with what-if questions: What if the votes in Florida had been counted differently in 2000, if Ralph Nader had not run or if Gore had been able to carry his home state? What if Kerry had responded more deftly to the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004?

A more powerful what-if is to imagine that Democratic nominees had succeeded in narrowing the white male gap to even the low 20s instead of the mid-20s. Both Kerry and Gore would have won easily.

In 2008, Democrats are assembling behind a front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, with singular problems among white males. Polls show her support among this group is approaching the record lows scored by Democrats during the peak of Ronald Reagan's popularity in the 1980s. Some recent hypothetical matchups - which are highly fluid at this stage of a contest - showed Clinton winning roughly a third of white males in a race against Republican Rudy Giuliani.

In the past three decades, the only two Democrats to win the presidency, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were politicians who organized campaigns around rhetorical and ideological pitches that were designed to reassure voters skeptical of liberal values - an attitude that dominates among white males. Even these victories, however, took place amid special circumstances, with the Watergate backlash of 1976 and the Ross Perot independent boom undermining Republicans in 1992.

Despite this history, so far none of the Democratic candidates has fashioned a program or message that seems calculated to reverse the flow of white males away from the party. One of the party's politicians who has thought most about the problem chose not to make the race in 2008.

Over the past two generations, said former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, "there was a morphing of the Democratic Party from a sense of a common good or a common commitment to each other as fellow citizens to being an advocate for groups. And I think that Democrats were advocates for every other group except for white males."

The problem with this approach is that it leaves virtually no margin for error. To win national elections, Democrats need to win nearly all of the African-American vote, a substantial majority of Hispanics and at least come close to winning half of white women. (Democrats have not actually commanded a majority of white women since 1964.)

One of the Democrats' top experts on political demography, Mark Gersh, has pondered how this math affects the most fought-over prize of recent elections, the 20 electoral votes in Ohio. "Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; you are not going to do better than that," Gersh said. He adds that Kerry earned 88 percent, as well. "So how are you going to win? I have this theory that the only way he could win the state was by really jumping the numbers up in Democratic performance in blue-collar northeastern Ohio."

"Concern for the common man"

Easy enough to say. But actually achieving this feat in Ohio and elsewhere for Democrats requires reckoning with political attitudes that have had several decades to take root - and are twisted not simply around policies but also deep cultural and economic shifts.

Trying to understand this history is what led to "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." The idea for the book began during the 2004 election, when I was traveling the country for CBS News. Many of these men, even three years ago, had lost their patience for the Iraq war. Often they had obvious reservations about George W. Bush. But it was made clear in conversations the contempt they felt for Democrats - and felt in return from Democrats. For these voters, it was an election with no real competition for their votes.

As I later learned, this was precisely the circumstance that some Republican strategists had vividly anticipated a quarter-century earlier.

Early in Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, his pollster Richard Wirthlin wrote a book-length campaign plan - never previously obtained - detailing a strategy expressly designed to "break up" the Democratic coalition. To "target the populist voter," the campaign would work toward the "development of the aspiring American populist theme of 'anti-bigness - big government, big business, big labor.'" The media messages were to be "simple, direct and optimistic." They were to focus on "blue collar" voters utilizing "principal themes" that "project a realization that these voters are no longer solely motivated by economic concerns but by larger social issues, as well."

It was an idea that informed not simply the 1980 campaign but also the next 25 years of GOP strategy. It was to "position [Reagan] as a doer, a man of action," the "decisive leader capable of making tough decisions." But above all, Reagan was to "solidify a public impression" that he "has concern for the common man and understands the problems facing voters in their daily lives."

It was Wirthlin who first coined the term "gender gap." But once "the press ran with the idea - the question they always asked was, 'Why is Reagan doing so poorly among women?' But that's only one blade of the scissors. The question I was always interested in was, 'Why was Reagan doing so well among men?'" he says. "It's been a mystery to me for 25 years why that wasn't recognized."

From 1980 on, Democrats never won more than 38 of every 100 white men who voted. Soon Republicans seemed to own masculinity itself.

[standlee5]

radiob, I agree. totally.

[signof4]

Still waiting for the WOO. WOO me, you dems....WOO me!!! :)

[lostcountry1]

good story. i have been saying that the dems. need to be more conservative on real issues in this country, but instead they only try to drag everybody as far left as they can. they must believe that there are enough ***,illegals and other minorities to outvote hardworking americans. their loyalty is not to the working class people, but only to the aclu and other far left liberals. i will never vote democrat again. i cannot vote republican either as they are nothing but a group of playground bullies who only want to have it all their way.there is currently NO-ONE running to vote for.until i see someone that will stop the illegal invasion, stop the illegal war, and bring the cost of living in line with wages,i will not throw my vote away.enough far left liberalism, enough far right war-mongering. who can i vote for?

[radiob-2009]

Both political parties have permanently lost my vote, neither party is representing Americans, only the corporations. The democrats have grandstanded on virtually every issue and the republicans are unable to get out of lock step with Bush. Our nation is at a crossroads and needs all GOOD MEN to Stand UP. Neither party cares about the average citizen who makes up 80% of the electorate. The wave of social programs created by the democratic party have failed, no amount of counseling, pyschiatric therapy can help the vast majority of the "our trouble makers" in society. Lighter punishments, jail overcrowding and reduced jail times for offenders of virtually every nature. The republican party on it''s behalf has gone from the party of smaller government to larger government (none of which commuticates with one another)fiscal soundness has gone out the door. The world has changed and the politicians have become "lapdogs" instead of statesman for the American public.Time for a new "Boston Tea Party" with all 536 (including the president) to be dumped into the harbor.

[softspoken99]

Yah, we''re the midgets. From midget to superpower, in one swift sentence.

[ajmarine1]

"All pieces in a masterful chessgame that helped make freedom a thing evil and unwanted."

Posted by softspoken99,

The USA has been around only 231 years, the rest of the world has been around for thousands and thousands year; we keep thinking and saying we know what''s best for them, when we are the new kids on the block.

The people that want freedom come here to live, the ones that don''t want it can stay where they are and live as they want, or as their governments will allow them to live. We have got to stop being the policeman for the world.

[softspoken99]

Its not so much that there is hate for these things. There''s hate for all things. Its that there are always the same people talking about multiple things. And that you eventually stop believing in them. The same faces ... "Political experts" ... Social engineers, who''ve conveniently taken it upon theirselves everybody else''s providence. Thats what really pisses me off.

[softspoken99]

"I''''m not going to get into another debate about "what are the real reasons for the war," I think that has been beat to death and everyone is already entrenched in what they believe."

The sad thing about it is: There might have really been a conspiracy. There might have really been something diabolical. And in fact relied on the status quo to help it do its work. Status quos such as racism? Sexxxxism? Racial divides? Spin? All pieces in a masterful chessgame that helped make freedom a thing evil and unwanted.

[softspoken99]

There is no racism in this country today. Other than whats "talked about" in the media.

[rajjar-2009]

For me most of this article is true. I switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican because the Democrats seem to be the anti-White male party.

The article mentions racial animus as a reason White men have defected and it is right. Only it got the direction of the animus wrong. White men didn''t defect because we are racist, we defected because the Democratic party is racist. It is virulently anti-White (as well as being misandristic).

The candidate that 1) secures the border and stops the illegal invasion, 2) restores men''s rights in the pro-creative process and in family/marriage concerns, 3) re-regulates big business (particularly the media and the banking system) 4) balances the budget, and 5) restores the Constitution will get my vote.

It''s dawning on me, as well as the majority of White men that we will probably have to create/turn to a third party.

[rajjar-2009]

For me most of this article is true. I switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican because the Democrats seem to be the anti-White male party.

The article mentions racial animus as a reason White men have defected and it is right. Only it got the direction of the animus wrong. White men didn''t defect because we are racist, we defected because the Democratic party is racist. It is virulently anti-White (as well as being misandristic).

The candidate that 1) secures the border and stops the illegal invasion, 2) restores men''s rights in the pro-creative process and in family/marriage concerns, 3) re-regulates big business (particularly the media and the banking system) 4) balances the budget, and 5) restores the Constitution will get my vote.

It''s dawning on me, as well as the majority of White men that we will probably have to create/turn to a third party.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:02 PM : Oct 04, 2007,

Same to you Tucker;

Live Long and Prosper.

[ajmarine1]

It''''s all about oil and nothing else.

Posted by tuckerndfw,

I''m not going to get into another debate about "what are the real reasons for the war," I think that has been beat to death and everyone is already entrenched in what they believe.

I still say that if is was all done for just oil, for what we have spent in blood, treasure, and lose of respect around the world, we could have bought every drop of oil Iraq could have ever produced.

History will tell if this was a visionary plan to bring peace to the Middle East or a stupid plan by a stupid man.

[ajmarine1]

"Not to mention being counterproductive for the stated goals. (eliminate terrorism)"

Posted by tuckerndfw,

I was for the war, I still think Saddam needed to go for a number of reasons, but the stated goals have changed so much from year to year, it''s hard to know what they are anymore. I do think this is about more than just Iraq, Iraq is just a piece of the Middle East puzzle.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:17 PM : Oct 04, 2007,


"United States As of September 29, 2006, around $374.5 billion has been allocated by the U.S. Congress for the Iraq war.[1] Also, around $454 billion has been spent as of September 26, 2007, based on current expenditure rates.[2]

The current rate of U.S. expenditure in Iraq is approximately $10 billion a month"

This IS alot of money, but is it an investment in the future of the US or like you said, "a bank heist?"

[ajmarine1]

tuckerndfw,

"The Baader-Meinhof Gang, who called themselves the Red Army Faction, and two other terrorist groups went killing dozens of people. In 1968 the prominent German journalist Ulrike Meinhof joined the former juvenile delinquent Andreas Baader and his girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin in launching the most terrifying era in German postwar history.

The student protests of 1968 gradually became riots. The young terrorists in their desperate attempt to start the world revolution took to terrorism: mere bank robbings turned to kidnappings and murders. Most of the leaders of the most famous West German terrorist group, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, were captured in mid-1972. Their followers continued kidnapping and killing people over the next five years in an effort to secure their leaders'' release from prison, but it was all in vain. The German government had no intention of releasing them."

Sounds like some nice play mates you had there Tucker.

[bizzzz-2009]

Almost EVERYBODY I have spoke to is voting for Hillary because Bill will be there.
Are we going to elect a President during this time in our history that, for most people, doesn%u2019t even stand on her own merits? Is that the profile of a war time leader? If you ask what Hillary%u2019s accomplished, most people will answer what Bill accomplished.
This war is not going to end because we want it to end. This war is going to end when the enemy stops attacking us. I don%u2019t know if any of the candidates could stop this war if they wanted to, unless we all agreed to bow at the hand of radical Islam or kill them until they give up. It''s not up to us, it''s up to them.
Iran poses a nuclear threat if they are able to pass a device off to a terrorist organization, without Iranian handprints. YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY NEXT YEAR, YOU WILL GET BILL CLINTON!
HILLARY CLINTON = BILL CLINTON
Clinton ignored the first Twin Tower bombing in 93, he ignored the two embassy bombings in Africa, he ignored the Cole bombing in Yemen. He degraded and defunded the intelligence agencies for years, to the point that they were left impotent.

[bizzzz-2009]

tuckerndfw,
I didn''t say the war has been a success, nor did I say we were winning. I''m saying that it was the right move to engage the middle east with boots on the ground.
I''m not a big Bush fan. I think he''s an idiot. However, if Iran poses a nuclear threat by passing a device off to a terrorist organization, then Bush''s decision to go to Iraq was correct. It%u2019s that simple. Unfortunately for some people, that pill is hard to swallow. IF, INDEED, WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAN, AS FRANCE AND GERMANY STATE IS POSSIBLE, THAN DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS WILL HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT WHILE BUSH''S INVASION OF IRAQ WAS CLUMSY, IT WAS ALSO SMART.
What Democrats don''t understand is that invading Iraq was never about WMD''s or oil. It was about Iran. It is a policy that George Bush could never tell the truth about, especially 5 years ago, but with Ahmedinigad statements yesterday, the Iraq invasion is starting to make more and more sense.
I look forward to electing a different Republican to office. I think that Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain aren''t that crazy about Bush either and will do things differently than Bush. Plus, they all have more leadership capabilities that any of the SPINELESS, WIMPY Democratic candidates who, by the way, the terrorists are licking the chops for- hoping and praying they get elected. Answer the terrorists prayers, vote Democrat next year.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw,

"But, the army didn''''t tell me there was a terrorist war going on in Europe until I got there"

When was that?

[ajmarine1]

The Marines sent their guys to the Army MP School at Ft Gordon, GA. The guy who bunked above me was a Marine.

We had great times harassing each other (hey, jarhead, you can''''t go anywhere, the photographer called in sick ... )

Posted by tuckerndfw

When I went to NCO School on Okinawa, we had some dogfaces with us.

It doesn''t matter what branch of the service you were in on what you did, all service to your country is Honorable service, thank you.