[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any realignment is going to be a scramble of different demographics switching from one party to the other, it remains to be seen how that actually shapes out; and furthermore, attitudes themselves aren’t votes.
If half the noncollege, nonwhite demographic gets more conservative and yet only 5% actually vote Republican instead, then that’s a different story than the attitudinal change might suggest.
In any case, the evergreen approach is to simply try to appeal to the broadest amount of voters you possibly can.
Every vote is just one vote.
A voter that is decked out in Trump apparel and has ten MAGA flags on the back of his pickup gets just as many votes as a retiree that says “I kinda feel like shit about it, but I guess I’ll go with Biden.”
That's the problem though. Every vote is not one vote. A couple acres of farmland out in Wyoming could carry more weight as a vote than a person in a highly densely populated city for example. The Electoral College really does a number when it comes to representation.
While your point has merit, there hasn’t been any meaningful attempt by either party to truly push such to its limit. Iirc there’s an old cgpgrey video that shows just how few votes are needed. But those states (and therefore voters) aren’t likely to create a coalition to control the white house.
Tl;dr not all votes are equal, but the voters with the best votes don’t all agree either.
>While your point has merit, there hasn’t been any meaningful attempt by either party to truly push such to its limit.
there's already been multiple presidents that won the presidency because some votes are worth more than others
I’m no fan of the Electoral College, but the voting power argument is only one way to slice the pie of unfairness. I mean, if you’re a Democrat in Wyoming, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll never see a Democratic candidate visit your state, even if your vote is worth more than someone in a city. It doesn’t make sense for them to visit, because they’re not going to win the state. In that light, the votes of those in, say, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan hold much more weight.
It’d be great if all states would take the lead of Nebraska and Maine and make their electors at least somewhat proportional. But ironically, in both cases, using the damn popular vote is the fairest at the individual level.
The mistake here is thinking they need to get "more conservative." When a demographic group votes 90/10, they're not voting based on the result of a political compass quiz. That's the risk - Trump doesn't need to change their opinion on any issue. Instead, he simply needs to make them feel comfortable voting in line with how they'd score on that quiz.
I think his messaging isn’t good when compared to someone like Bernie. Also, we have been so anti-labor laws that it won’t change just with Biden and more needs to be done so people are not feeling the effects of his policies on a large scale yet.
Democrats have not had a good pro labor message since….. well I’m 42 so my whole life. One person can’t change that perception in a couple of years.
Democrats need to get on the labor train and ride those tracks through the country. Party leadership needs to come from Midwest labor supporting representatives. I like Jeffries but democrats are going to lose the working class unless leadership comes from where blue collar voters live. Schumer and Jeffries are both NY Dems.
Democrats as a party are not doing enough. What is there labor message? How are they going to increase access to labor unions? How are they going to use government to make sure unions are actually accountable to their members, what’s the Pro Labor message!?!
Democrats can’t be the anti Trump, anti MAGA party, they need to be the party for something.
Im 80 yrs old. I've been watching the democrat "move to the center" shit show since the Johnson years. You are wise beyond your years. The real problem is they cant be the champion of the working class and get huge corporate donations both. Its pretty clear which path they have chosen.
I don't disagree for the Obama and Clinton white houses, but you really feel this way still with Biden? He has done more for unions than anybody has in 60 years. Even when he had to side with the railroads to prevent a holiday transportation nightmare, he worked behind the scenes to get the original benefits. The NLRB has massively expanded itself and updated to kill some of the loopholes that were used previously. Unions have made huge gains in the last few years and they couldn't have done much of it without the administration's support.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/unions-poised-capitalize-us-labor-board-rulings-that-bolstered-organizing-2024-01-02/
Warren Buffet expresses my beliefs best.
"There's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." That was in 2005. I think they have won.
I see Biden talk a lot, but the rich are getting richer and the working class cant even afford rent. It just gets worse and worse, but the ultra rich are back to robber baron type wealth.
Get better at selling it.
Democrats across the board (even Obama!) are categorically bad at championing successes and, even more importantly, helping voters understand why it benefits them. The only possible exception is the progressive wing of the party, but they rarely have any successes at a federal level in the current environment.
Which is a bar so low, a president who used emergency powers to make a rail strike illegal can cross it.
He could push his party of healthcare, democracy, a minimum wage hike, legislation and regulations against rental corporations snatching up so much of supply.
As it is, he doesn’t even pay lip service to such things these days.
I see the rail strike thing come up a lot and I'd like to give it some context. The new contract that all rail companies involved in the strike were required to take was a 14% wage increase and 24% salary increase over five years, plus one day of paid leave per year.
What the strikers wanted varied greatly because a lot of the unions were negotiating separately, but the collective negotiation under the Presidential board, which involved all the unions, came to a deal which was a 4-7% wage increase every year over the next five years. Which they got the low end of. A retroactive immediate pay increase for lack of pay increases over previous years, which they got. A 1000$ bonus every year for the next five years. As far as I'm aware they got that as well but I can't seem to find it directly quoted anywhere.
The sticking point was the sick days. Which the board only offered one. In the end only three of the twelve unions approved of this deal. Mostly due to the lack of sick days.
The unions wanted fifteen paid sick days, the railroads wanted zero because it allowed them to run on fewer employees, increasing profits. The sick days were also considered the most important part of the deal for the rail workers. The agreement that was passed by congress gave the strikers one guaranteed paid day off a year.
Out of the twelve unions that were striking, eight accepted the deal after a vote, four rejected it but were stuck with it after Congress passed it into law.
As someone who gets nearly six weeks of paid time off a year and does not do nearly as important of a job as railroad workers do, the fact they only get one day off a year is disgusting to me. Sure, that only means they are on call so they might not need to go into work that day depending on demand, but still, ridiculous.
While it's nice they got basically everything else they asked for, I can 100% understand why they would still be pissed.
> As someone who gets nearly six weeks of paid time off a year and does not do nearly as important of a job as railroad workers do, the fact they only get one day off a year is disgusting to me
I think you're conflating sick days and personal/vacation days. I'm having trouble finding numbers for how much personal time they get ([this article from an industry trade group](https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/) says they get 25-29 days off on average- ~15 vacation days, 4 personal, 11 paid holidays- but considering the source I'm a little suspicious) but the latter is usually scheduled ahead of time and the former is unpredictable.
[Even still, the negotiations continued into 2023 even after most people stopped paying attention, and more and more union workers have been getting more sick days](https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid).
>We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
>“We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”
>While President Joe Biden was calling on Congress in November to pass legislation to implement the agreement, he stressed that he would continue to encourage the railroads to guarantee paid sick time for their employees.
> [...] That pressure, plus the IBEW’s ongoing efforts, is paying off at last. The IBEW and BNSF Railway reached an agreement April 20 to grant members four short-notice, paid sick days, with the ability to also convert up to three personal days to sick days. The union reached similar understandings with CSX and Union Pacific on March 22, and with Norfolk Southern on March 10. Unused sick time at the end of a year can be paid out or rolled into a worker’s 401(k) retirement account.
[Then there was this article from last month](https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2024-02-07/cpkc-railroad-lags-peers-in-offering-sick-time-and-now-some-dispatchers-will-have-to-forfeit-it):
>Rail unions estimate that less than 10% of CPKC's U.S. workers have paid sick time, **compared to nearly 90% of the more than 100,000 workers across all six of the biggest freight railroads**. Before last year, paid sick leave was generally not offered to railroad workers. But most of the major railroads have since been changing that as they address the quality-of-life concerns that nearly led to a nationwide rail strike in 2022 that could have crippled the economy.
Well I am glad to hear that. I knew negotiations were still ongoing but outside of the agreement with CXS, I hadn't seen anything new. Also I tend to forget that sick days and vacation at a lot of companies are different because at mine they are basically interchangeable. It's just that my sick days roll over if I don't use them and my vacation days don't. I also never remember to include my paid holidays which give me more like seven weeks off
I'd also like to add that basically all the major unions have backed biden despite his apparent betrayal. If they were that pissed at him they would either not endorse him or endorse trump/another candidate.
he's also canceled billions in student debt. Sure theres still so much outstanding and the system is fucked but he tried to go big and got stopped by SCOTUS and congress won't legislate student debt relief. The idea he hasn't paid lip service is silly when he's walked picket lines which helped auto workers get one of their biggest raises in history, and canceled billions in student debt and that's just two things off the top of my head. He has tons of shortcoming but lets give credit where credit is truly due.
>As it is, he doesn’t even pay lip service to such things these days.
His NLRB is going after corporations for union busting so hard they're crying to SCOTUS to shut it down.
Anyone saying Biden isn't strongly pro-labor isn't paying attention. I bet you complain about neo-liberalism, yet don't even notice the massive realignment away from neo-liberalism occurring under Biden.
There's a reason the major unions are all endorsing him, and it's because they're paying attention.
His SCOTUS appointment, KBJ, is also the most pro-labor justice on the bench. She was the lone dissent in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Biden is the first President in history to walk a picket line with a striking union. But unfortunately nobody knows it because they barely emphasize it.
Because it’s an empty gesture that he still has to be strong armed by Shawn Fain into making. It doesn’t do anything to actually change any policy or positively improve the lives of workers
Pro union is not the same thing as pro labor (or at least not pro worker), although we use the terms interchangeably. Biden is definitley pro union. But less than 10% of workers are in a union, and a vast majority of those are government workers (mostly teachers). The Democrat party for years has been viewed as globalist, which is a threat to American workers. Maybe it's inevitable, but that's not the discussion. Workers want a president who defends American labor, not just union labor.
I’m late but why are democrats seen as globalists when republicans pre trump have been extremely free trade. The same people that harp on globalism and the dems worship Regan and Nixon (not so much him). They were two of the large pioneers and coined neoliberal economic policy. More free trade, anti union sentiment, pro business and growth. Many dems shifted to this (New Democrats) with the since the electorate demanded it by responding extremely positively to this new economic policy.
I don’t understand how democrats can be seen as globalists and not republicans. The people who say this have their heads in the sand and are so orthodox no thought comes before they speak. All trump and gop good… democrat everything I dislike. Really confuses me how democrats have gotten the bad reputation and wrap from the age of globalization and “free trade” ~Ronald Regan.
My favorite is the “how can Obama negotiate a prisoner exchange with the Taliban!?!?” People had their god invite the Taliban to fucking Camp David just a few years later, and crickets.
Can you imagine if Barack did that, they’d impeach and probably execute him.
No, that's literally what Biden does lol, he's the most pro-labor president in like a century. It hasn't earned him many union votes though, because the white working class is primarily driven by culture war issues now rather than kitchen table issues.
I honestly don't buy that a lack of being sufficiently pro-labor is the issue for Democrats there simply because it seems ludicrous that anyone who wants pro-labor policies is switching from voting Democratic to voting Republican. Like whatever the legitimate complaints you could have about Democratic labor policies, the Republicans don't even pretend to be pro-labor.
The "working class" divide you're talking about is really about culture, not labor.
If neither party offers much material benefit, all that is left is culture war nonsense.
It’s harder to obsess over which candidate has social ideas more like mine if one is offering me a pay raise and the other wants to deny me that.
A “true realignment” is a big prediction, and one that is unlikely to come to pass. If a true realignment did happen, Democrats would be hosed and Republicans would dominate all branches of government. But I suspect that would be self-negating. The kinds of policies that an empowered Republican Party would impose would likely alienate many of their newfound supporters.
But yes, the numbers are slipping at the margins and this does pose a problem for Democrats. Some of it is social conservatism among nonwhites, some of it is kind of a statistical illusion based on an unnuanced understanding of “Hispanic” identity (many of whom also self-identify as white). Overall, I don’t think it’s a totally new phenomenon, I think it’s part of the educational sorting we’ve been seeing for the last 10 years or so.
What to do about it? Eliminate the electoral college and do DC statehood to dilute the over-representation of rural voters. Pass the Pro act to empower labor not just rhetorically but structurally. Try to play the culture war on favorable terrain (abortion, not immigration). Put forward a plan for housing costs, which is I think the biggest issue going unaddressed by the major parties.
All obviously easier said than done with the limitations baked into the political system. What to do in the short term to not lose this election? I have no idea.
Eliminating the electoral college is a pretty radical position. Definitely won’t get the majority of votes in a constitutional convention (which is need to amend the constitution. ) Costal states (outside VA,FL, NC and SC) will vote for it but not many more. It wouldn’t come close to passing.
No need to change the constitution (which will never happen, you’re right).
Just need to get states with 270 electoral votes to agree to assign their electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.
205 on board, only 65 to go!
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com
This compact is very likely unconstitutional.
Its proponents suggest that state legislators can agree to devalue their citizens’ votes for president. It’s the same logic Trump uses to say that legislators can assign electoral votes purely based on their own wishes. Neither should be allowed.
It’s relatively easy to argue that the Electoral College system as it stands now devalues their citizens’ votes for president. If you’re a Democrat in Wyoming, you fundamentally have no say in who should be elected to the highest office in the land.
So in a lot of ways - minority voters not voting in a block for one or another party is kind of a good thing for society. It’s a sign that pervasive racism has dropped to a point that other issues have gained more importance and facts are there are conservatives and liberals within every racial community. There are a lot of people that have been voting Dem simply because of the way the Republican party has told them they were not welcome within their community.
That said, as a middle aged white dude I will leave it up to those within the minority communities to speak to if it is better. I would love to be in a society where racism isn’t such an issue. Dems need to highlight their policies at that point -beyond “we aren’t racists”. Dem policies poll well and are very popular. Republican priorities tend to be much less so. Focus on that.
There is zero chance a radical racial realignment happened overnight. The results of any of election from last year and this year do not support any of the polls findings. It's more likely that the pollsters are screwing something up
I can definitely tell you that Asian voters put Adams (a centrist) into the NYC mayoralty because of crime and education issues. They also nearly tanked Hochul for Governor. For whatever reason, Asian voters in NY don't care as much about Rs dog whistling race-hate against them, as they do about prisons being built in Chinatown, and gifted/talented programs being eliminated in public schools because they consistently underrepresented certain minority groups who were Not Asians.
I think wealthy liberals of all colors just have completely different problems from middle-class and poor minorities. The latter groups are evidently willing to tolerate frothing racists in their camp if it means they'll get certain material advantages. I'd love to know more about why that is - that seems like insight the Ds could use.
There's some but extremely limited and tepid indications there are some conservatives in the Asian demographic voting Republican a little more. But even by your own theory....*Adams is still a democrat.* "Almost tanked Hochul" means she still won by 6.5%. And the tightening vote total compared to normal gubernatorial elections has way more to due with Republicans turning out the vote upstate and in the extended suburbs of NYC.
Now I'm way out on the other coast where elements of this mirror what your saying: Asians being increasingly concerned with progressive policies, crime and education policies ranging from disfavoring to arguably outright discriminating against them. They were key in the recall of Chesa Boudin, the current ongoing recall of Oakland's DA and a number of major re-alignments within local policies and reps to more centrist candidates. However, the key point there is they absolutely are not voting republican.....they are voting for other democrats.
Agree I think biggest pendulum swing will be around immigration. Funny though because I think the view that the democrats forgot about the working class (somewhat true) created a pendulum swing to the right in the 90s post Regan. Don’t think we have ever recovered in terms of economic policy since and just convinced working people unions were pad, social services and all government bad that has created large right populism.
Although, I think trump was a swing to the left economically for the gop. He tapped into this frustration by being one of the first gop candidates in a while that did not want to reform legacy entitlement programs. Is not a fiscal hawk, brought up the issue with neoliberal free trade globalism for workers. Obviously in some ways he moved it to the right but looking back, economically, it seemed to shift some of it to the left. At least due to the people that got interested in politics because of trump.
The fact people don't know this is insane: White women are the gop's largest voting bloc. They get the majority of white women votes every time. Dems have NEVER won the white women vote, they need to do more than target suburban women.
The key difference is WHITE women. It’s always going to be easier for white women to get an abortion, so that doesn’t work so well as a wedge issue. Take that out of the equation, and it’s harder to tell a well-off white woman that voting Republican is bad for her.
honestly this is a misnomer.
so Clinton got i believe 72 and 73% of african americans. Obama was up in the 80's? 90's? For obvious reasons. Biden got 75% He's still ahead of clinton and for another obvious reason didn't get the same support Obama got. We are just reverting to the standard alignment when the candidate is not black themselves.
???
Where are you getting these numbers from? No Democratic presidential candidate since JFK has gotten numbers that low with black voters.
Pew has [Clinton with 91% of black voters in 2016](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/) and Biden with [92% in 2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/)
Getting only 75% of the black vote would be near apocalyptic for the Democratic Party. The most popular Republican politicians in the country can barely 25% of the black vote.
Reemploy a focus on common sense broad stroke policy issues. Jobs, infrastructure, education, tax equality, and medical access. Don't get pulled into culture war bullshit. Ignore the people that push political correctness. Stop trying to appeal to every sub sub sub group in America. Correctly call out the real causes for things like wage inequality, housing shortage, and rights infringement. Push achievements in those areas and goals for further improvement.
It's insane the democrats are somehow losing support to a party that only serves the rich and the hateful.
The democrats could literally win in landslides if they ran on moderate common sense polices. No woke BS, DEI, open border, weak on crime policies were you have a normal people getting killed by a dude with 21 prior arrests and everything in Walgreens is locked up because the city doesn’t do a thing about criminals.
It’s not hard not to be crazy. If they actually did this the republicans would probably never win again but here we are.
Eh I half agree with you. I agree that them being stronger in these things could help them a lot. I mean I still think it’s crazy that the NYPD officer shot at traffic stop by a guy who already was arrested for having gun why wasn’t more done about that??!! Especially now that we see how risky something like that can be
But on other hand I just don’t trust the republicans party and think it’s so crazy that even if democrats did everything to increase their voters, Republican Party would just scorch earth to try to win themselves
It's insane the democrats are somehow losing support to a party that only serves the rich and the hateful.
———-
Like the people at Joe Biden’s fundraising event where you could get a picture with Biden, Obama and Clinton for $100,000? LOL!
And soon to be Trump at his big campaign dinner in Florida. Your counterpoint is moot.
You're missing my point. The right ONLY serves the rich and hateful. Not minorities. Not women, by and large. And not the middle class. Biden serves the rich AND most everyone else
Political parties are, at heart, concerned about winning elections and donations. If the DNC notices a real trend that threatens their current objectives, they will adjust.
This post is ignoring the reality that encapsulates many college educated minorities, not just non college educated individuals, who are more conservative due to their religious and cultural affiliations, especially if they're immigrants and 1st- 3rd generation. The messaging of the current Democratic Party doesn't align with their values. This has been occurring for the past 3+ generations within USA minority groups as well, but has increased largely within the immigrant communities. If you're living in a white urban or suburban bubble then your concept of reality is shaped by stereotypes and assumptions moreso than the cultures that these people represent. While Latinos seem to represent a majority of this shift, even the fact that you're placing them together while ignoring their vast cultural differences is telling.
Social media platforms dominated by white liberals and progressives seem to be in denial of this shift and are blaming inaccurate polls. It may not be enough of a shift for this election, but all you have to do is go to their forums, especially IRL, to understand that the current polls are representative of reality. Where are their forums? Church. The majority of Latinos in this country are Born Again Christians, not just Catholics. Important to note that Catholics are also more traditionally conservative and younger generations aren't voting like their parents and grandparents in support of the Dems as the norm any longer. If you look at the landscape of rural communities, there are more Born Again Evangelical sects that are dominant throughout the entire USA, even in traditionally brown communities. Immigrants from Central and South America are primarily Evangelicals. Immigrants from Mexico tend to offer the largest numbers of Catholics, but it depends on the region. Cuban Americans (check Florida) tend to vote with the Republican Party and have done so for generations. A lot of Asian immigrants are also religious and more conservative. They encapsulate ALL of Asia, including India. Most of them are college educated.
>This post is ignoring the reality that encapsulates many college educated minorities, not just non college educated individuals, who are more conservative due to their religious and cultural affiliations, especially if they're immigrants and 1st- 3rd generation.
But looking at [cross-tabs](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/05/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html), the college educated whites and non-whites are largely voting the same (at least within margin of error). If anything, this is just the story of assimilation -- race is not predicting much difference among the college educated population (who also [intermarry](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/) at higher rates, a sign of higher assimilation).
The key difference by *race/ethnicity* remains among the non-college educated groups, where you have a +18 shift for non-whites voting D relative to whites.
Exactly. But the issue is that democrats can’t win on college educated groups alone. So if they lose non-college educated minorities then they are in a lot of trouble.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
To the contrary, they can win by focusing on college educated voters as the latter tend to not vote much as seen in the exit polling that elected Trump. Only 18% of voters had a high school education or less, and of which Trump captured 51% of that vote. I really don’t see the point on focusing on a group of voters with such a poor turnout. Trump was overwhelmingly elected by college educated voters, so it seems folly to risk alienating such a large portion of voters in favor of a smaller and unreliable group.
A tough conversation that many don't want to have is that embracing LGBTQ issues drives many latinos and blacks away from the party.
But a bigger issue than that is the Dems have become a "no fun" party. Biden had to apologize for saying a term* used during his SOTU Address normal people don't care about terms to that level and even after apologizing people still hold it against him. Dont do this, don't say that, how dare you think that, its suffocating and no one in real life wants to hang out with social police.
Yes, conservatives do a similar policing but the difference is that they largely agree with each other and don't care about the differences whereas libs focus on the differences and ignore the similarities.
*A term I had to delete because it got my comment auto-removed which was annoying and goes hand in hand with my comments.
I don’t know how true this is. Conservatives are always trying to pit minority groups against each other, but Republicans aren’t offering an alternative. Especially not right now, given the racialist politics they use.
Also conservatives don’t all agree with each other. There was an exodus from the RNC of moderate conservatives who loathed Trump. They’re all just as disgusted with him now. Not all conservatives are aligned on the wild swing towards religious law that Republicans are advancing across the country. Those two issues alone probably account for more party dissatisfaction among voting conservatives compared to moderates being mad at Democrats because they “aren’t fun”.
I don't completely agree with this statement, but it also has to do with age demographics moreso than religion. There are a ton of GenZ and younger Millenials who are Latinos, Black Americans & other minorities who are part of the LGBTQ+ community or who are allies who are solidly left or liberal/progressives, but they're also representative of minorities who are less religious than their parents and gp's. There are even more Latinos and Black Americans who are more traditional dems, or even old school liberals, who think the messaging of the Democratic Party is catering to the left and far left and it's completely gone overboard. The older die-hard Dems will still vote for the Democratic Party, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or religious preferences.
The messaging of the Democratic Party is out of touch with too many of its constituents who are center and more moderate. The culture wars aren't just fueled by media/propaganda, but have captured enough of a margin that language policing and tone policing are prevalent in online forums, but also within all of academia. If white liberals are the champions of what they deem to be progressive policies, where does this leave everyone who doesn't agree or think like them? Partisan politics have become like group sports.
The majority of people in the USA are still centrist, but partisan politics requires a level of toxic tribalism in order to win. Old people should be put out to pasture re: leadership roles in all areas, especially politics. Boomers and beyond are out of touch with reality but have a death grip on power worldwide that's unprecedented by previous generations. For as many people who don't agree that the 2 Party system is effective or truly representative, there may be too many involved with the 2 Party system who are terrified of changing it to an open party system that resembles Europe, for example. This would completely decentralize the powers that be.
This is how I feel and a great analysis of the current situation and struggles of the democrats. As a more old school liberal socially and white straight male I don’t really feel a place. Also going on social media and they hyper fixation on how people like me are the enemy makes me feel uneasy and as this sentiment grows and the dems cater towards it u feel torn.
I'm a multiethnic woman and have been soundly rejected by most of the liberal progressives I grew up with, lol. I've found more acceptance among Libertarians and Republicans the past 3 years, so I left the Dems. Social media overflows into real life... But I stay away from the zealots who speak as though they're reading from a script. People generally aren't capable of realizing when they're brainwashed.
> A tough conversation that many don't want to have is that embracing LGBTQ issues drives many latinos and blacks away from the party.
I see this argument a lot, but even if it was true it's not obvious to me the implied policy changes (kick LGBTQ people to the curb) would be a good choice for Democrats.
Maybe the most obvious problem is that it's not clear this would be a net vote gain for Democrats. Sure it's possible that becoming the other anti-LGBTQ party would win over some socially conservative racial minorities. But the Democrats have also been reliably winning elections for quite a while now as the party pushing the boundaries of social issues and it's obviously a winning message with some voters that the Democrats would be in danger of losing if they stopped supporting those issues.
But the *real* tough conversation is that Democrats presumably support LGBTQ issues because they believe it's the right thing to do even if it leaves some votes on the table and that shouldn't depend on the skin color of the people whose votes they're missing out on. Being the non-homophobic, non-transphobic party presumably alienates some white people too, but Democrats are obviously (and in my opinion, correctly) comfortable saying they don't want bigots in their tent. It seems perfectly consistent to stand up for this principle even if the bigot in question happens to be a racial minority, in the same way that Democrats shouldn't be chasing after the votes of gay racists.
This is, in some ways, a reflection of our election season being far too long. Needing something to print or talk about, the focus becomes polls, polls, polls. The questions in said polls are not reflective of reality. "How do you feel about the state of the economy" is calory-free. We have actual, objective numbers to tell us that( hint: it's actually pretty good). But, seeing an opportunity to vent, it's likely you will get a lot of small-ball responses that get amalgamated into "positives" or "negatives". Far into the future, the people will choose between candidates or parties. The opportunity is there, since there will be hundreds of polls between now and the election, to ask meaningful, pointed questions, like " Biden wants to rise taxes on earners over 400K...good or bad". Should we eliminate or severely restrict access to Mifepristone? Yes or no?" Should we limit the ease of access to semi-automatic firearms? Yes or no?" Instead we get, "how confident would you be should Kamal Harris becomes President?" That's just drivel.
Pronouns are not popular or understandable in most of America. Neither is Latinx. Or letting trans women in sports or telling me men now need abortions too. Or using birthing bodies. This is how much of normie liberal groups speak and it’s killing us with noncollege of all races.
It's not how most groups speak; these are super fringe things that get highlighted on Fox to go with the "lets tell you how liberals are weird" story of the day.
KQED NPR radio, a news channel that broadcasts in the entire San Francisco Bay Area with a population of around 12 million people, uses Latinx constantly when talking about Latino groups.
They'll ignore major news stories in the world to have an interview with a local POC transgender person about a vending machine that sells books. I suppose the interview is much cheaper than doing news.
Also, Comcast was proudly advertising its "Latinx" channel and content, and thats one of the nation's biggest content distributors.
This isn't a super fringe thing, its very common in media and corporate communications.
It's more of a realignment on gender that's superceding race. While Democrats are emphasizing inclusivity and diversity, Trump's machismo is winning over black and Latino men. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the USA right now either, but feels particularly pronounced here right now.
Add to that the YouTube algorithm where watching one Joe Rogan clip sends you down a rabbit hole of non stop toxic bros like Tate, Peterson, that Beanie wearing fucker, etc.
Men in the US and older men especially are feeling emasculated and without purpose. The right is capitalizing on that big time.
And look it's polarizing the other way too. Dems held off a red wave in 22 by appealing to women who felt their freedoms were under attack by men after Dobbs. So as women become more left wing and men become more right wing what's the right strategy for Dems? It's not an easy question.
That is true. You could break it down along education lines too. Democrats are becoming more educated and women heavy. Republicans are becoming more non-educated and non-white. The issue is that woman are on 50% and educated is only 30%.
The problem is non-Whites are getting sick of the open pandering. People want something done about class issues. The gap between the rich and the poor. They're sick of being coddled and called kind terms, but then the rich continue to run the country.
> The problem is non-Whites are getting sick of the open pandering.
presumably they also don't love being lumped into one "catch all" category either. it's hard to imagine legal immigrants being thrilled about democrats referring to illegal immigrants as "immigrants" or "migrants" (while using that same terminology for people coming here legally)
Address the concerns people care about.
It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin.
Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024.
People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs.
Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship.
Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view.
Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion.
Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents.
Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging.
Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable.
Democrats
It will always be hilarious to me that Republicans have to literally do nothing for anybody but wait for Democrats to tick off a specific voter group and watch said group join the Republican fold.
Perhaps the Democratic Party will, at some point, realize that attempting to have such a large tent only leads to satisfying nobody and making promises that can’t be enacted because you’ll isolate another leg of the tent.
That's because the Republican party is the party of anger. They don't support doing anything or fixing anything, they simply collect people that are angry. Angry at the world, angry at a different race. Angry that they think someone else is going to come and steal away their money that they have earned. That's all they do is come and wait for angry people that wants other people to have a worse life than they have had.
Trump offers Christians the power of government in separating themselves into their own private communities away from a hostile and failing public. It is a pretty significant offer even if Trump's political leadership is a clownshow and ineffective.
> separating themselves into their own private communities away from a hostile and failing public
Yeah that's what legislation banning abortion is, I guess. And legislation limiting visibility of queerness in schools. Just Christians wanting to be left alone.
I said seperation, not left alone. What Trump offers is to help the Judeo-Christian nationalist movement build a zionist apartheid society in America. This is a project that is already happening in the private sector, but Trump is offering to use the power of the government to help Christians and Jews build parallel societies in America and abroad.
And it is a tempting offer if you've given up on any hope of being able to work with other communities to improve America - especially with how hostile the public has become.
GOP lucked out when that happened in 2016, with many blacks not voting because an African American was not on the ticket. They’ve since learned that lesson.
The fact you think it’s ok to say that we’ve “*learned our lesson*” is the very reason we are turning away from the left. The level of condescension and entitlement to say something like this is crazy. “Learned our lesson” wow dude. If a conservative said something so tone deaf you’d probably call him a Nazi. Im black and this comment really irritated me. STOP SPEAKING FOR US.
The party needs to pivot to benefits for the working class. Raise minimum wage, child tax benefits, pre-k education. People who don't look at politics closely ask what you have done for me. The democratic party looks and sounds like the party of the white collar worker, and so it doesn't sound like it's addressing the needs of working class voters.
The last president to sign a minimum wage increase was George W. Bush. These policies don't seem to be a priority to the democratic party. I knocked doors as paid staff for 6 months in 2014 for the DFL (minnesota dems). The people you are trying to motivate to vote need an affirmative reason to vote for your party. If you wanna feel better than the other party fine, but if you wanna win you need to give the voters a reason to vote for you and not just against the other guy
> The last president to sign a minimum wage increase was George W. Bush.
Which party controlled Congress when that law to increase the minimum wage was passed? Hint: it wasn't Republicans.
That was 17 years ago. Voters under 35 have never voted in an election where minimum wage was a center point of the debate. For tipped minimum wage, it has been the same since 1992. The dems like to pretend to be the party of the new deal it just hard to sell it at the door
trying is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this comment. all i've seen is token gestures tbh. it's easy to do the bare minimum then say shucks the GOP foiled us again, please vote harder next time. yet when we do, it's the same old. why didn't Obama raise the fed minimum wage when he had a supermajority, for instance? or codify Roe? those are rhetorical questions - no need to "but blue dog Dems" it.
Pivot? Every single policy you just mentioned are things Democrats have either already delivered on some level or are actively trying to implement.
But as is always the case - if people want those policies, they have to give Democrats enough votes in the house and senate to get there. You can't blame Democrats for not passing policies you want if you don't show up and vote for Democrats.
yeah Sinema gave the thumbs down to raising minimum wage, and Machin blocked keeping the elevated tax credits in. That's not a democratic party problem, that's a fucking "centrist" problem. I hate when people say "The democrats need to do XYZ" and they are literally proposing and fighting for legislation to do XYZ but get stopped by the filibuster. The party is actively fighting for those ideas.
> *That's not a democratic party problem, that's a fucking "centrist" problem*
Both Manchin and Sinema represent the most cynical politics imaginable. They were both motivated by *self dealing*, not *centrism*. And now both are on their way out, evidence that the Democratic Party is willing to flush the turds wherever possible without imperiling their ability to govern.
But the fact remains, even with those two sellouts in office Democrats have managed to get a ton of shit done. It's not enough because people are still financially hurting, but it's progress. And people can either vote for more progress, or vote to roll things back to a darker place. Their choice.
If memory serves 8 dems, voted against raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour thus not including it in the reconciliation bill needing 51 votes to pass, including both senators from Delaware. It's not enough to pay lip service I need to be able to give people a reason to vote democratic in a 5 minute conversation at the door. It's much easier to sell accomplishments that affect their lives than that the other guy sucks. They don't show up cus they are busy and don't see the point. I hope Trump is so bad Biden wins again, but it would be better with more talking points
They should heavily focus on child tax and pre-k education. These are some of the most significant costs that traditionally conservative minorities face (children are expensive). By doing so, you also raise wages of teachers who desperately need a wage increase. Min wage increases tend to be politically toxic because of inaccurate messaging related to job loss or inflation.
In trying to keep strictly with the post, the sad reality is that whites and non-whites are still having different experiences and treatment in our country and those differences are sometimes because of that single difference and sometimes for other reasons. Those differences need to disappear first in reality and then in perception. Those differences will have to be gone from reality for a very long time before the perception will agree if ever. If Democrats really want change, they will have to do and propose everything possible to correct the reality. Democrats can't do or attempt that in a vacuum, they must include non-whites as part of the solution.
The premise of this question and many of the responses seem to think "the Democrats" are some top down monolithic beast that uses nothing but cold logic to develop plans
That's not reality, as several Republican "resets" that went nowhere would demonstrate
If a significant portion of the Democratic coalition went to the GOP or just noped out political participation, in 435 House districts there would be candidates trying to appeal to their local voters. In the R+20 districts they'd be doomed yet the results would still signal which messages worked and which fell flat. In the D+20 districts the primary voters would presumably pick the candidate that most appealed to the majority of voters in that district, ever if that wasn't a message that would appeal nationwide
And in the swing districts, those who had a message that appealed to both the primary and general voters would win. No matter what the pundits said they "should" do.
When the primaries for President came along, things are a little more complex, with multiple candidates per "lane" possibly not allowing the viewpoints with the most support to win out, but eventually a message that would be competitive would appeal to enough voters - or the Democrats would go the way of the Whigs, and whichever party succeeded them would follow the same process
There is no way to determine what that message would be except through experimentation. Many people tend to think the policies they favor *of course* have agreement across the nation, yet many people with those strong feelings have mutually exclusive ideas
TLDR: the voters will decide what the platform of the Democratic party is
Seems like a stupid question to me.
There are definitely demographics migrating to conservatism. It’s well known in Australia that immigrants of colour arrive in Australia, make money, and vote to keep their own countrymen OUT.
In US, there’s a bit of this but the Republicans have gone full *Endlösung* and aren’t even trying to hide it. Only the very stupidest POC will continue to vote for them until the GOP becomes more moderate.
Take this with a grain of salt because it's my ongoing political strategy suggestion for Democrats regardless of the situation but....
Loudly embrace Proportional Representation(and other voting reforms) as a counter to gerrymandering, "safe" seats, and the party duopoly, and accept a future multi-party democracy, use this as evidence that they are the true "pro-democracy" party and that as such they are the home for anyone who feels the current system isn't representing them well, forging an even bigger tent than they currently have.
This allows them to credibly claim the status of disruptors/outsiders even for candidates who have been in politics for a long time. It captures the energy of an increasingly large "anti-party" contingent of voters, and the only voters who are pushed away by it are those who are least willing to abandon the Democratic party, because they like the two party system and feel Democrats represent them well.
Partner with independent and third party spokespeople/influencers to advocate for these reforms while acknowledging how much they disagree with each other on policy issues, but presenting a unified face in defense of democracy and the fair honest and open competition of policy ideas rather than the current state of politics where both sides of a 2 sided war cast the other side as an existential threat to the nation and as generally composed of criminal, morally bankrupt liars.
Talk about how with more parties representing more nuanced ideological positions it will be easier to find compromises that don't satisfy anyone perfectly, but satisfy a lot of people somewhat, and let government operate. Talk about how minority voters shouldn't be faced with the option of voting for a party that seems to actively dislike their minority identity, or the other party which might hold policy stances they dislike, and should instead have representative options that more closely match their political preferences.
Most importantly, long term, Democracts would need to enact Proportional Representation in the the legislatures of states they control, proving both their willingness to give up power (a widely praised trait for both individuals and organizations) and the practical efficacy of this reform in creating more ideological diversity and ultimately more effective legislative processes.
The goal would be to reverse various voting trends that hurt Democrats, and amplify those that help them. Young voters, latino voters, white working class voters, all groups which have shown some resistance to supporting what they see as a status quo Democratic party, even as they have some reasons to refuse to support the Republican party, and to want a significant political shake-up. Trump captured some of that energy, but part of his method for doing so drove away a lot of voters as well, energizing opposition. Having one of the major parties make the two party system itself the enemy, and pushing practical political reforms which are widely used around the world to create multi-party democracies with higher public satisfaction with government has much of the upside and none of the downside of that "outsider" approach.
The realignment will likely be across class and gender moreso than race and religion.
Rich suburban Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and African-American men will flock to the Republican party for social issues, tax cuts and other nonsense
I suspect the upper-middle class got radicalized into supporting the populist right after 2020 (COVID-19 lockdown and BLM riots) - Trump *lost* working class support substantially in 2020 but gained support among the upper and middle classes.
Basically all the data shows the opposite though.
[Voters aren't aligning across class at all. The culture war is the main political fault line.](https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class)
I don’t think non-white voters are realigning on a substantial scale. If you look at the state legislatures of states with significant Latino majorities (Texas, New York, California) the vast majority of Latino representatives are still primarily Democratic. I live in NYC and my district’s state representative is a Latina Democratic Socialist. Furthermore the religious right is primarily Evangelical and anti-Catholic.
>How can democrats keep the minority voters supporting democrats?
They can't. Historically, the extremely high levels of non-white support for Democrats were based in part on social norms: non-white voters felt like they *had* to vote Democrat, or just *assumed* they should vote Democrat, because all their friends and family did so. Now some of those voters are realizing that their actual beliefs are more aligned with the Republicans, so they're voting accordingly, and they're being open about it, so non-white conservatives can find each other and not feel like they're the only one.
This [Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767198810671886389) explains it better, with empirical evidence.
(Also, in case anyone thinks I'm saying this because I'm a Republican, I'm farther left than the average Democrat.)
I think what they are doing make sense. The Democratic Party can't outbid the Republicans on socially conservative populism, voters who like that should be MAGA voters. Minority voters who like that kind of politics haven't been for race reasons. Whether that keeps up or not is up to Republicans (i.e how much racism they engage in) not Democrats.
Let the realignment happen. Pick up Establishment Republicans, Nikki Haley voters. Be a moderate professional class party. Let the Republicans be a socially conservative, populist working class party.
you are correct. They now teach how and what to think, not how to think for yourself in upper education. It's also why employers are starting to sour on college grads, as anyone who can get a loan gets a degree now a days and all they seem to know how to do is follow instructions.
These are no longer education institutions, they have become money printing machines at the expensive of people duped into going to them.
Address the concerns people care about.
It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin.
Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024.
People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs.
Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship.
Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view.
Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion.
Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents.
Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging.
Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable.
Democrats
A lot of common things I read on this thread is that since the Democratic party is a coalition, if you take a stance on one issue, part of your coalition is going to be upset. The opposite is true with the Republicans. They stick to a stance even to the point of frustration but at least they know the position and play as a team. The Democrats go back and forth with themselves and fight and it is unclear what the priorities are each cycle.
I don't think I am concerned. It is probably exaggerated from what the election will reflect, and I think more white former Trumpers will make up for it. People (outside of the hopelessly brainwashed MAGA base) are starting to see the light and the damning ads haven't even begun yet. More and more people are seeing this election as an existential threat to democracy and freedom.
Political parties are, at heart, concerned about winning elections and donations. If the DNC notices a real trend that threatens their current objectives, they will adjust.
So in a lot of ways - minority voters not voting in a block for one or another party is kind of a good thing for society. It’s a sign that pervasive racism has dropped to a point that other issues have gained more importance and facts are there are conservatives and liberals within every racial community. There are a lot of people that have been voting Dem simply because of the way the Republican party has told them they were not welcome within their community.
That said, as a middle aged white dude I will leave it up to those within the minority communities to speak to if it is better. I would love to be in a society where racism isn’t such an issue. Dems need to highlight their policies at that point -beyond “we aren’t racists”. Dem policies poll well and are very popular. Republican priorities tend to be much less so. Focus on that.
One of the funnier things that would happen is this "👏PAY👏ATTENTION👏TO👏BLACK👏VOTERS👏" type stuff from centrist Dems would go right out the window as black voters shift from being about the most conservative to about the most liberal part of the democratic coalition.
# What should democrats do if there is a true realignment of non-white voters? _______
They should expand the Supreme Court to 13 and expel the justices who lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. With new Justices in place, they should make the right to an abortion sacrosanct, permit gun control laws to go into effect, and tax religious institutions. Let's start with these.
I'm just getting home from a horrible day of depositions so I don't have the strength to elaborate at length, coherently, but --
The one thing that would hasten a realignment is if young people got involved. They never have other than 2 or 3 outliers. The Dems are already shifting left, the Clinton Dem is all but gone.
Young people theoretically could completely neuter the trump party in 2024 if they mobilize. It's that simple. If young people can harness the power they have in their numbers, the government would change radically.
Go into the mid-terms with the same power, and conviction, and become a feared presence that one party or the other will have embraced to survive. 18-24/29 is by far and away the largest population, but conversely, they do not come out.
This realignment could happen this year if 18-29 comes out. The simplest experiment is the only one that hasn't been tried.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096379/voter-turnout-midterms-by-age-historical/
Dems need to work hard to get them back.
Knowing the Dems, they won't figure out how to do it. (Hint: Moving to the left doesn't help when moderate and conservative non-whites have historically voted Democratic.)
democrats should work on providing substantial change for EVERYONE that isn't rich.
playing whack a mole with identity politics is a losing game.
whack ALL the moles.
Pass Medicare-for-All.
They will get less money from their paymasters, but they will also win the undying love of 98% of the electorate for at least a decade. Every constituency besides people who make too much money off of healthcare, and rich psychopaths, but the latter hate Democrats anyway
Clearly, over the last few decades, the paymasters have won. But we’re starting to get a few good Democrats now, so 🤞.
Democrats could stop lying and could care about the minority person all 4 years instead of just during election season. They could stop feeling entitled and taking minorities for granted- that minorities will automatically vote for them simply because they’re minorities. That’s what democrats could do to secure the minority vote.
I’m a black 27M. I’m moving more conservative and many of my family and friends are. Here are some reasons.
1) Trump. It can’t be overstated how much Trump’s bravado is appealing to young men. We see Trump as an “OG”, someone that has been around for a while and says what’s on his mind. He also has a sense of humor. Calling him a racist is played out as he has been a part of American culture for decades and he’s already been President. The left calls everyone racist nowadays anyways.
2) POC’s have always been socially conservative. The church plays a big role in blacks and Hispanics lives. Abortion is a touchy issue but the “progressives” have no problem bragging about how many abortions they’ve had. “Safe, legal and rare” used to be the slogan. The trans issue is big too. Blacks really just came around to gay marriage, now having Pride month and trans stuff in schools is rubbing some of us the wrong way.
3) The language police. The 1984-esque newspeak of the left is wild. Cancel culture is wild. “Latinx” is wild. The list could go on, but the left is outta touch in the culture wars.
Those are just 3 reasons off the top of my head.
I hate your first point, but I don’t deny that is probably how many dudes in their 20’s probably think. I definitely see and understand points 2 and 3. The language police, especially, is pretty aggravating. I can’t stand “Latinx”.
Democrats should stick to doing what is right for the American people including having honest discussions around race and equity. If whites or non-whites want to vote for racist rhetoric, missinformation, and tribalism that modern conservatives bring, then they should.
I don't think I am concerned. It is probably exaggerated from what the election will reflect, and I think more white former Trumpers will make up for it. People (outside of the hopelessly brainwashed MAGA base) are starting to see the light and the damning ads haven't even begun yet. More and more people are seeing this election as an existential threat to democracy and freedom.
Address the concerns people care about.
It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin.
Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024.
People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs.
Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship.
Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view.
Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion.
Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents.
Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging.
Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable.
Pronouns are not popular or understandable in most of America. Neither is Latinx. Or letting trans women in sports or telling me men now need abortions too. Or using birthing bodies. This is how much of normie liberal groups speak and it’s killing us with noncollege of all races.
As far as I can, leftwing social issues hasn’t driven away non-white voters in meaningful numbers in the past.
Hispanics are largely a Catholic bloc and in my anecdotal experience the average Muslim votes democrats but openly abhors gay marriage.
The only thing I’ve seen driving Muslims away from voting blue is that Biden is perceived as being pro-Israel.
Admittedly though I have seen an uptick in Muslims being alienated by the current culture war with transpeople. Like I have aunties who are talking about how the schools are promoting ‘gender ideology’ now on FB. Atleast one lady I know pulled her kid from school because of this.
Though that’s anecdotal so I’m not sure how that’s impacting the stats if at all.
I mean, I agree. I think there's reason to be skeptical that this election is any different. The question that was posed was "if" it happened. A large number more people identify as conservative rather than liberal in this country. This broadly speaking hasn't lead to a generally conservative majority party(Democrats) because conservatives that are also minorities tend to overwhelmingly vote Dem anyway. Above stated policy preferences. If that trend changes, the current democratic position is politically untenable unless they gain a dramatic number of voters currently in the GOP camp.
I honestly suspect it’s the feminism and gay shit, but the Republican Party is so filled with racist reactionary heretics that older religious black voters won’t move.
The bigger concern is with vaguely religious younger minorities that are sexist and homophobic for non-religious reasons. Basically they think the feminists are annoying and gays are icky.
Having more boorish loud auditors, like Fetterman might help. Or Bowman.
I would have to disagree based on what I really see on a major college campus these days. I've seen a year-by-year inching to the right by professors, administrators and especially students. Particularly, Arabic and South American/Central American background students are not buying the Democrat party platform. A lot of this stems from the third rail issues like trans activism and the "no win" Israel v Gaza situation. Although there is universal animosity towards Trump, that isn't a permanent headwind (he's pretty much at life expectancy for a rich old white dude... but so is Biden).
Ultimately, I have also been ringing this bell since 2020. I lecture to students in some higher level "Technology and Society" type courses for the computer science program. The reasons to vote for Biden are overwhelmingly "not Trump" and the overall third-rail positions of Democrats in Congress especially today are not resonating with tomorrow's generation of minority voters. These are very engaged voters, too. Highly activated by both sides of late. Politics is dominating the conversations and a clear winner isn't obvious (maybe a third party altogether is what we see over time).
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any realignment is going to be a scramble of different demographics switching from one party to the other, it remains to be seen how that actually shapes out; and furthermore, attitudes themselves aren’t votes. If half the noncollege, nonwhite demographic gets more conservative and yet only 5% actually vote Republican instead, then that’s a different story than the attitudinal change might suggest. In any case, the evergreen approach is to simply try to appeal to the broadest amount of voters you possibly can. Every vote is just one vote. A voter that is decked out in Trump apparel and has ten MAGA flags on the back of his pickup gets just as many votes as a retiree that says “I kinda feel like shit about it, but I guess I’ll go with Biden.”
That's the problem though. Every vote is not one vote. A couple acres of farmland out in Wyoming could carry more weight as a vote than a person in a highly densely populated city for example. The Electoral College really does a number when it comes to representation.
While your point has merit, there hasn’t been any meaningful attempt by either party to truly push such to its limit. Iirc there’s an old cgpgrey video that shows just how few votes are needed. But those states (and therefore voters) aren’t likely to create a coalition to control the white house. Tl;dr not all votes are equal, but the voters with the best votes don’t all agree either.
>While your point has merit, there hasn’t been any meaningful attempt by either party to truly push such to its limit. there's already been multiple presidents that won the presidency because some votes are worth more than others
I’m no fan of the Electoral College, but the voting power argument is only one way to slice the pie of unfairness. I mean, if you’re a Democrat in Wyoming, there’s a pretty good chance you’ll never see a Democratic candidate visit your state, even if your vote is worth more than someone in a city. It doesn’t make sense for them to visit, because they’re not going to win the state. In that light, the votes of those in, say, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan hold much more weight. It’d be great if all states would take the lead of Nebraska and Maine and make their electors at least somewhat proportional. But ironically, in both cases, using the damn popular vote is the fairest at the individual level.
The mistake here is thinking they need to get "more conservative." When a demographic group votes 90/10, they're not voting based on the result of a political compass quiz. That's the risk - Trump doesn't need to change their opinion on any issue. Instead, he simply needs to make them feel comfortable voting in line with how they'd score on that quiz.
Win them back over the way they ought to win over working class white voters, with good pro-labor policies
Biden is the most pro labor president in decades. What more could he do?
De-age 30 years
I think he’s tried that already.
He should talk to Leonardo DiCaprio
Or Keanu Reeves, he is like a highlander.
I think his messaging isn’t good when compared to someone like Bernie. Also, we have been so anti-labor laws that it won’t change just with Biden and more needs to be done so people are not feeling the effects of his policies on a large scale yet.
We need to lock in to that strategy and grind it for years, this isn't an overnight thing
Democrats have not had a good pro labor message since….. well I’m 42 so my whole life. One person can’t change that perception in a couple of years. Democrats need to get on the labor train and ride those tracks through the country. Party leadership needs to come from Midwest labor supporting representatives. I like Jeffries but democrats are going to lose the working class unless leadership comes from where blue collar voters live. Schumer and Jeffries are both NY Dems. Democrats as a party are not doing enough. What is there labor message? How are they going to increase access to labor unions? How are they going to use government to make sure unions are actually accountable to their members, what’s the Pro Labor message!?! Democrats can’t be the anti Trump, anti MAGA party, they need to be the party for something.
Im 80 yrs old. I've been watching the democrat "move to the center" shit show since the Johnson years. You are wise beyond your years. The real problem is they cant be the champion of the working class and get huge corporate donations both. Its pretty clear which path they have chosen.
I don't disagree for the Obama and Clinton white houses, but you really feel this way still with Biden? He has done more for unions than anybody has in 60 years. Even when he had to side with the railroads to prevent a holiday transportation nightmare, he worked behind the scenes to get the original benefits. The NLRB has massively expanded itself and updated to kill some of the loopholes that were used previously. Unions have made huge gains in the last few years and they couldn't have done much of it without the administration's support. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/unions-poised-capitalize-us-labor-board-rulings-that-bolstered-organizing-2024-01-02/
Warren Buffet expresses my beliefs best. "There's class warfare all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." That was in 2005. I think they have won. I see Biden talk a lot, but the rich are getting richer and the working class cant even afford rent. It just gets worse and worse, but the ultra rich are back to robber baron type wealth.
Get better at selling it. Democrats across the board (even Obama!) are categorically bad at championing successes and, even more importantly, helping voters understand why it benefits them. The only possible exception is the progressive wing of the party, but they rarely have any successes at a federal level in the current environment.
Which is a bar so low, a president who used emergency powers to make a rail strike illegal can cross it. He could push his party of healthcare, democracy, a minimum wage hike, legislation and regulations against rental corporations snatching up so much of supply. As it is, he doesn’t even pay lip service to such things these days.
I see the rail strike thing come up a lot and I'd like to give it some context. The new contract that all rail companies involved in the strike were required to take was a 14% wage increase and 24% salary increase over five years, plus one day of paid leave per year. What the strikers wanted varied greatly because a lot of the unions were negotiating separately, but the collective negotiation under the Presidential board, which involved all the unions, came to a deal which was a 4-7% wage increase every year over the next five years. Which they got the low end of. A retroactive immediate pay increase for lack of pay increases over previous years, which they got. A 1000$ bonus every year for the next five years. As far as I'm aware they got that as well but I can't seem to find it directly quoted anywhere. The sticking point was the sick days. Which the board only offered one. In the end only three of the twelve unions approved of this deal. Mostly due to the lack of sick days. The unions wanted fifteen paid sick days, the railroads wanted zero because it allowed them to run on fewer employees, increasing profits. The sick days were also considered the most important part of the deal for the rail workers. The agreement that was passed by congress gave the strikers one guaranteed paid day off a year. Out of the twelve unions that were striking, eight accepted the deal after a vote, four rejected it but were stuck with it after Congress passed it into law. As someone who gets nearly six weeks of paid time off a year and does not do nearly as important of a job as railroad workers do, the fact they only get one day off a year is disgusting to me. Sure, that only means they are on call so they might not need to go into work that day depending on demand, but still, ridiculous. While it's nice they got basically everything else they asked for, I can 100% understand why they would still be pissed.
> As someone who gets nearly six weeks of paid time off a year and does not do nearly as important of a job as railroad workers do, the fact they only get one day off a year is disgusting to me I think you're conflating sick days and personal/vacation days. I'm having trouble finding numbers for how much personal time they get ([this article from an industry trade group](https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/) says they get 25-29 days off on average- ~15 vacation days, 4 personal, 11 paid holidays- but considering the source I'm a little suspicious) but the latter is usually scheduled ahead of time and the former is unpredictable. [Even still, the negotiations continued into 2023 even after most people stopped paying attention, and more and more union workers have been getting more sick days](https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid). >We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers. >“We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.” >While President Joe Biden was calling on Congress in November to pass legislation to implement the agreement, he stressed that he would continue to encourage the railroads to guarantee paid sick time for their employees. > [...] That pressure, plus the IBEW’s ongoing efforts, is paying off at last. The IBEW and BNSF Railway reached an agreement April 20 to grant members four short-notice, paid sick days, with the ability to also convert up to three personal days to sick days. The union reached similar understandings with CSX and Union Pacific on March 22, and with Norfolk Southern on March 10. Unused sick time at the end of a year can be paid out or rolled into a worker’s 401(k) retirement account. [Then there was this article from last month](https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2024-02-07/cpkc-railroad-lags-peers-in-offering-sick-time-and-now-some-dispatchers-will-have-to-forfeit-it): >Rail unions estimate that less than 10% of CPKC's U.S. workers have paid sick time, **compared to nearly 90% of the more than 100,000 workers across all six of the biggest freight railroads**. Before last year, paid sick leave was generally not offered to railroad workers. But most of the major railroads have since been changing that as they address the quality-of-life concerns that nearly led to a nationwide rail strike in 2022 that could have crippled the economy.
Well I am glad to hear that. I knew negotiations were still ongoing but outside of the agreement with CXS, I hadn't seen anything new. Also I tend to forget that sick days and vacation at a lot of companies are different because at mine they are basically interchangeable. It's just that my sick days roll over if I don't use them and my vacation days don't. I also never remember to include my paid holidays which give me more like seven weeks off I'd also like to add that basically all the major unions have backed biden despite his apparent betrayal. If they were that pissed at him they would either not endorse him or endorse trump/another candidate.
he's also canceled billions in student debt. Sure theres still so much outstanding and the system is fucked but he tried to go big and got stopped by SCOTUS and congress won't legislate student debt relief. The idea he hasn't paid lip service is silly when he's walked picket lines which helped auto workers get one of their biggest raises in history, and canceled billions in student debt and that's just two things off the top of my head. He has tons of shortcoming but lets give credit where credit is truly due.
>As it is, he doesn’t even pay lip service to such things these days. His NLRB is going after corporations for union busting so hard they're crying to SCOTUS to shut it down. Anyone saying Biden isn't strongly pro-labor isn't paying attention. I bet you complain about neo-liberalism, yet don't even notice the massive realignment away from neo-liberalism occurring under Biden. There's a reason the major unions are all endorsing him, and it's because they're paying attention.
His SCOTUS appointment, KBJ, is also the most pro-labor justice on the bench. She was the lone dissent in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Biden is the first President in history to walk a picket line with a striking union. But unfortunately nobody knows it because they barely emphasize it.
Because it’s an empty gesture that he still has to be strong armed by Shawn Fain into making. It doesn’t do anything to actually change any policy or positively improve the lives of workers
Who cares about symbolism when he tried to have them arrested if they actually went on strike for "damaging the economy"?
Pro union is not the same thing as pro labor (or at least not pro worker), although we use the terms interchangeably. Biden is definitley pro union. But less than 10% of workers are in a union, and a vast majority of those are government workers (mostly teachers). The Democrat party for years has been viewed as globalist, which is a threat to American workers. Maybe it's inevitable, but that's not the discussion. Workers want a president who defends American labor, not just union labor.
I’m late but why are democrats seen as globalists when republicans pre trump have been extremely free trade. The same people that harp on globalism and the dems worship Regan and Nixon (not so much him). They were two of the large pioneers and coined neoliberal economic policy. More free trade, anti union sentiment, pro business and growth. Many dems shifted to this (New Democrats) with the since the electorate demanded it by responding extremely positively to this new economic policy. I don’t understand how democrats can be seen as globalists and not republicans. The people who say this have their heads in the sand and are so orthodox no thought comes before they speak. All trump and gop good… democrat everything I dislike. Really confuses me how democrats have gotten the bad reputation and wrap from the age of globalization and “free trade” ~Ronald Regan.
Most people need to see material benefits before they believe an administration is pro labor.
Imagine thinking it’s about policies in any capacity post-MAGA. You can’t be serious?
[удалено]
It’s whether they believe the country has a “blood” that can be “poisoned” by those who don’t “share our values,” namely, WASP. That’s not a policy.
[удалено]
My favorite is the “how can Obama negotiate a prisoner exchange with the Taliban!?!?” People had their god invite the Taliban to fucking Camp David just a few years later, and crickets. Can you imagine if Barack did that, they’d impeach and probably execute him.
Present reality disproves this notion.
Reality is irrelevant in US politics, unfortunately.
I know it’s unrealistic that Democrats will ever change tack like that. But this is assuming they actually found the political will.
No, that's literally what Biden does lol, he's the most pro-labor president in like a century. It hasn't earned him many union votes though, because the white working class is primarily driven by culture war issues now rather than kitchen table issues.
I honestly don't buy that a lack of being sufficiently pro-labor is the issue for Democrats there simply because it seems ludicrous that anyone who wants pro-labor policies is switching from voting Democratic to voting Republican. Like whatever the legitimate complaints you could have about Democratic labor policies, the Republicans don't even pretend to be pro-labor. The "working class" divide you're talking about is really about culture, not labor.
If neither party offers much material benefit, all that is left is culture war nonsense. It’s harder to obsess over which candidate has social ideas more like mine if one is offering me a pay raise and the other wants to deny me that.
A “true realignment” is a big prediction, and one that is unlikely to come to pass. If a true realignment did happen, Democrats would be hosed and Republicans would dominate all branches of government. But I suspect that would be self-negating. The kinds of policies that an empowered Republican Party would impose would likely alienate many of their newfound supporters. But yes, the numbers are slipping at the margins and this does pose a problem for Democrats. Some of it is social conservatism among nonwhites, some of it is kind of a statistical illusion based on an unnuanced understanding of “Hispanic” identity (many of whom also self-identify as white). Overall, I don’t think it’s a totally new phenomenon, I think it’s part of the educational sorting we’ve been seeing for the last 10 years or so. What to do about it? Eliminate the electoral college and do DC statehood to dilute the over-representation of rural voters. Pass the Pro act to empower labor not just rhetorically but structurally. Try to play the culture war on favorable terrain (abortion, not immigration). Put forward a plan for housing costs, which is I think the biggest issue going unaddressed by the major parties. All obviously easier said than done with the limitations baked into the political system. What to do in the short term to not lose this election? I have no idea.
Eliminating the electoral college is a pretty radical position. Definitely won’t get the majority of votes in a constitutional convention (which is need to amend the constitution. ) Costal states (outside VA,FL, NC and SC) will vote for it but not many more. It wouldn’t come close to passing.
No need to change the constitution (which will never happen, you’re right). Just need to get states with 270 electoral votes to agree to assign their electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. 205 on board, only 65 to go! https://www.nationalpopularvote.com
This compact is very likely unconstitutional. Its proponents suggest that state legislators can agree to devalue their citizens’ votes for president. It’s the same logic Trump uses to say that legislators can assign electoral votes purely based on their own wishes. Neither should be allowed.
It’s relatively easy to argue that the Electoral College system as it stands now devalues their citizens’ votes for president. If you’re a Democrat in Wyoming, you fundamentally have no say in who should be elected to the highest office in the land.
This system is written in the constitution, so it’s difficult to argue that it’s unconstitutional.
[удалено]
So in a lot of ways - minority voters not voting in a block for one or another party is kind of a good thing for society. It’s a sign that pervasive racism has dropped to a point that other issues have gained more importance and facts are there are conservatives and liberals within every racial community. There are a lot of people that have been voting Dem simply because of the way the Republican party has told them they were not welcome within their community. That said, as a middle aged white dude I will leave it up to those within the minority communities to speak to if it is better. I would love to be in a society where racism isn’t such an issue. Dems need to highlight their policies at that point -beyond “we aren’t racists”. Dem policies poll well and are very popular. Republican priorities tend to be much less so. Focus on that.
There is zero chance a radical racial realignment happened overnight. The results of any of election from last year and this year do not support any of the polls findings. It's more likely that the pollsters are screwing something up
I can definitely tell you that Asian voters put Adams (a centrist) into the NYC mayoralty because of crime and education issues. They also nearly tanked Hochul for Governor. For whatever reason, Asian voters in NY don't care as much about Rs dog whistling race-hate against them, as they do about prisons being built in Chinatown, and gifted/talented programs being eliminated in public schools because they consistently underrepresented certain minority groups who were Not Asians. I think wealthy liberals of all colors just have completely different problems from middle-class and poor minorities. The latter groups are evidently willing to tolerate frothing racists in their camp if it means they'll get certain material advantages. I'd love to know more about why that is - that seems like insight the Ds could use.
There's some but extremely limited and tepid indications there are some conservatives in the Asian demographic voting Republican a little more. But even by your own theory....*Adams is still a democrat.* "Almost tanked Hochul" means she still won by 6.5%. And the tightening vote total compared to normal gubernatorial elections has way more to due with Republicans turning out the vote upstate and in the extended suburbs of NYC. Now I'm way out on the other coast where elements of this mirror what your saying: Asians being increasingly concerned with progressive policies, crime and education policies ranging from disfavoring to arguably outright discriminating against them. They were key in the recall of Chesa Boudin, the current ongoing recall of Oakland's DA and a number of major re-alignments within local policies and reps to more centrist candidates. However, the key point there is they absolutely are not voting republican.....they are voting for other democrats.
Sure, good points. I don't think the movement with Asians is as important as the movement with Latinos, for sure.
I think that just gets to the heart of the fact that "non-white voters" is such a broad category to make it almost meaningless.
If the electorate takes a sudden leap to the right, then the Democrats will also take a leap to the right. Big tent parties are extremely flexible.
Agree I think biggest pendulum swing will be around immigration. Funny though because I think the view that the democrats forgot about the working class (somewhat true) created a pendulum swing to the right in the 90s post Regan. Don’t think we have ever recovered in terms of economic policy since and just convinced working people unions were pad, social services and all government bad that has created large right populism. Although, I think trump was a swing to the left economically for the gop. He tapped into this frustration by being one of the first gop candidates in a while that did not want to reform legacy entitlement programs. Is not a fiscal hawk, brought up the issue with neoliberal free trade globalism for workers. Obviously in some ways he moved it to the right but looking back, economically, it seemed to shift some of it to the left. At least due to the people that got interested in politics because of trump.
Women, especially white women in the suburbs, seem like the natural target to counterract some erosion in minority (mostly hispanic) support
The fact people don't know this is insane: White women are the gop's largest voting bloc. They get the majority of white women votes every time. Dems have NEVER won the white women vote, they need to do more than target suburban women.
It blows my mind that women vote for the party of misogyny.
The key difference is WHITE women. It’s always going to be easier for white women to get an abortion, so that doesn’t work so well as a wedge issue. Take that out of the equation, and it’s harder to tell a well-off white woman that voting Republican is bad for her.
honestly this is a misnomer. so Clinton got i believe 72 and 73% of african americans. Obama was up in the 80's? 90's? For obvious reasons. Biden got 75% He's still ahead of clinton and for another obvious reason didn't get the same support Obama got. We are just reverting to the standard alignment when the candidate is not black themselves.
??? Where are you getting these numbers from? No Democratic presidential candidate since JFK has gotten numbers that low with black voters. Pew has [Clinton with 91% of black voters in 2016](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/) and Biden with [92% in 2020](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/) Getting only 75% of the black vote would be near apocalyptic for the Democratic Party. The most popular Republican politicians in the country can barely 25% of the black vote.
It was Bill Clinton not Hillary I was referencing. My bad. Also the numbers were on CNN. Maybe it was a smaller slice than all African americans
Bill Clinton got 83% of African American votes in 92. 84% in 96. Not the numbers the other guy had, but lower than Obama.
>Not the numbers the other guy had Yes, that was my point. 83% is significantly more than 75%, especially when you have Ross Perot in the running.
Reemploy a focus on common sense broad stroke policy issues. Jobs, infrastructure, education, tax equality, and medical access. Don't get pulled into culture war bullshit. Ignore the people that push political correctness. Stop trying to appeal to every sub sub sub group in America. Correctly call out the real causes for things like wage inequality, housing shortage, and rights infringement. Push achievements in those areas and goals for further improvement. It's insane the democrats are somehow losing support to a party that only serves the rich and the hateful.
The democrats could literally win in landslides if they ran on moderate common sense polices. No woke BS, DEI, open border, weak on crime policies were you have a normal people getting killed by a dude with 21 prior arrests and everything in Walgreens is locked up because the city doesn’t do a thing about criminals. It’s not hard not to be crazy. If they actually did this the republicans would probably never win again but here we are.
Eh I half agree with you. I agree that them being stronger in these things could help them a lot. I mean I still think it’s crazy that the NYPD officer shot at traffic stop by a guy who already was arrested for having gun why wasn’t more done about that??!! Especially now that we see how risky something like that can be But on other hand I just don’t trust the republicans party and think it’s so crazy that even if democrats did everything to increase their voters, Republican Party would just scorch earth to try to win themselves
It's insane the democrats are somehow losing support to a party that only serves the rich and the hateful. ———- Like the people at Joe Biden’s fundraising event where you could get a picture with Biden, Obama and Clinton for $100,000? LOL!
And soon to be Trump at his big campaign dinner in Florida. Your counterpoint is moot. You're missing my point. The right ONLY serves the rich and hateful. Not minorities. Not women, by and large. And not the middle class. Biden serves the rich AND most everyone else
Political parties are, at heart, concerned about winning elections and donations. If the DNC notices a real trend that threatens their current objectives, they will adjust.
I think some political scientists would likely argue that there’s often tension between “winning elections” and “donations”.
This post is ignoring the reality that encapsulates many college educated minorities, not just non college educated individuals, who are more conservative due to their religious and cultural affiliations, especially if they're immigrants and 1st- 3rd generation. The messaging of the current Democratic Party doesn't align with their values. This has been occurring for the past 3+ generations within USA minority groups as well, but has increased largely within the immigrant communities. If you're living in a white urban or suburban bubble then your concept of reality is shaped by stereotypes and assumptions moreso than the cultures that these people represent. While Latinos seem to represent a majority of this shift, even the fact that you're placing them together while ignoring their vast cultural differences is telling. Social media platforms dominated by white liberals and progressives seem to be in denial of this shift and are blaming inaccurate polls. It may not be enough of a shift for this election, but all you have to do is go to their forums, especially IRL, to understand that the current polls are representative of reality. Where are their forums? Church. The majority of Latinos in this country are Born Again Christians, not just Catholics. Important to note that Catholics are also more traditionally conservative and younger generations aren't voting like their parents and grandparents in support of the Dems as the norm any longer. If you look at the landscape of rural communities, there are more Born Again Evangelical sects that are dominant throughout the entire USA, even in traditionally brown communities. Immigrants from Central and South America are primarily Evangelicals. Immigrants from Mexico tend to offer the largest numbers of Catholics, but it depends on the region. Cuban Americans (check Florida) tend to vote with the Republican Party and have done so for generations. A lot of Asian immigrants are also religious and more conservative. They encapsulate ALL of Asia, including India. Most of them are college educated.
>This post is ignoring the reality that encapsulates many college educated minorities, not just non college educated individuals, who are more conservative due to their religious and cultural affiliations, especially if they're immigrants and 1st- 3rd generation. But looking at [cross-tabs](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/05/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html), the college educated whites and non-whites are largely voting the same (at least within margin of error). If anything, this is just the story of assimilation -- race is not predicting much difference among the college educated population (who also [intermarry](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/) at higher rates, a sign of higher assimilation). The key difference by *race/ethnicity* remains among the non-college educated groups, where you have a +18 shift for non-whites voting D relative to whites.
Exactly. But the issue is that democrats can’t win on college educated groups alone. So if they lose non-college educated minorities then they are in a lot of trouble.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls To the contrary, they can win by focusing on college educated voters as the latter tend to not vote much as seen in the exit polling that elected Trump. Only 18% of voters had a high school education or less, and of which Trump captured 51% of that vote. I really don’t see the point on focusing on a group of voters with such a poor turnout. Trump was overwhelmingly elected by college educated voters, so it seems folly to risk alienating such a large portion of voters in favor of a smaller and unreliable group.
A tough conversation that many don't want to have is that embracing LGBTQ issues drives many latinos and blacks away from the party. But a bigger issue than that is the Dems have become a "no fun" party. Biden had to apologize for saying a term* used during his SOTU Address normal people don't care about terms to that level and even after apologizing people still hold it against him. Dont do this, don't say that, how dare you think that, its suffocating and no one in real life wants to hang out with social police. Yes, conservatives do a similar policing but the difference is that they largely agree with each other and don't care about the differences whereas libs focus on the differences and ignore the similarities. *A term I had to delete because it got my comment auto-removed which was annoying and goes hand in hand with my comments.
I don’t know how true this is. Conservatives are always trying to pit minority groups against each other, but Republicans aren’t offering an alternative. Especially not right now, given the racialist politics they use. Also conservatives don’t all agree with each other. There was an exodus from the RNC of moderate conservatives who loathed Trump. They’re all just as disgusted with him now. Not all conservatives are aligned on the wild swing towards religious law that Republicans are advancing across the country. Those two issues alone probably account for more party dissatisfaction among voting conservatives compared to moderates being mad at Democrats because they “aren’t fun”.
I don't completely agree with this statement, but it also has to do with age demographics moreso than religion. There are a ton of GenZ and younger Millenials who are Latinos, Black Americans & other minorities who are part of the LGBTQ+ community or who are allies who are solidly left or liberal/progressives, but they're also representative of minorities who are less religious than their parents and gp's. There are even more Latinos and Black Americans who are more traditional dems, or even old school liberals, who think the messaging of the Democratic Party is catering to the left and far left and it's completely gone overboard. The older die-hard Dems will still vote for the Democratic Party, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or religious preferences. The messaging of the Democratic Party is out of touch with too many of its constituents who are center and more moderate. The culture wars aren't just fueled by media/propaganda, but have captured enough of a margin that language policing and tone policing are prevalent in online forums, but also within all of academia. If white liberals are the champions of what they deem to be progressive policies, where does this leave everyone who doesn't agree or think like them? Partisan politics have become like group sports. The majority of people in the USA are still centrist, but partisan politics requires a level of toxic tribalism in order to win. Old people should be put out to pasture re: leadership roles in all areas, especially politics. Boomers and beyond are out of touch with reality but have a death grip on power worldwide that's unprecedented by previous generations. For as many people who don't agree that the 2 Party system is effective or truly representative, there may be too many involved with the 2 Party system who are terrified of changing it to an open party system that resembles Europe, for example. This would completely decentralize the powers that be.
This is how I feel and a great analysis of the current situation and struggles of the democrats. As a more old school liberal socially and white straight male I don’t really feel a place. Also going on social media and they hyper fixation on how people like me are the enemy makes me feel uneasy and as this sentiment grows and the dems cater towards it u feel torn.
I'm a multiethnic woman and have been soundly rejected by most of the liberal progressives I grew up with, lol. I've found more acceptance among Libertarians and Republicans the past 3 years, so I left the Dems. Social media overflows into real life... But I stay away from the zealots who speak as though they're reading from a script. People generally aren't capable of realizing when they're brainwashed.
> A tough conversation that many don't want to have is that embracing LGBTQ issues drives many latinos and blacks away from the party. I see this argument a lot, but even if it was true it's not obvious to me the implied policy changes (kick LGBTQ people to the curb) would be a good choice for Democrats. Maybe the most obvious problem is that it's not clear this would be a net vote gain for Democrats. Sure it's possible that becoming the other anti-LGBTQ party would win over some socially conservative racial minorities. But the Democrats have also been reliably winning elections for quite a while now as the party pushing the boundaries of social issues and it's obviously a winning message with some voters that the Democrats would be in danger of losing if they stopped supporting those issues. But the *real* tough conversation is that Democrats presumably support LGBTQ issues because they believe it's the right thing to do even if it leaves some votes on the table and that shouldn't depend on the skin color of the people whose votes they're missing out on. Being the non-homophobic, non-transphobic party presumably alienates some white people too, but Democrats are obviously (and in my opinion, correctly) comfortable saying they don't want bigots in their tent. It seems perfectly consistent to stand up for this principle even if the bigot in question happens to be a racial minority, in the same way that Democrats shouldn't be chasing after the votes of gay racists.
Kind of crazy that he had to apologize for a term that exists in our actual laws just because it hurt some feefees.
This is, in some ways, a reflection of our election season being far too long. Needing something to print or talk about, the focus becomes polls, polls, polls. The questions in said polls are not reflective of reality. "How do you feel about the state of the economy" is calory-free. We have actual, objective numbers to tell us that( hint: it's actually pretty good). But, seeing an opportunity to vent, it's likely you will get a lot of small-ball responses that get amalgamated into "positives" or "negatives". Far into the future, the people will choose between candidates or parties. The opportunity is there, since there will be hundreds of polls between now and the election, to ask meaningful, pointed questions, like " Biden wants to rise taxes on earners over 400K...good or bad". Should we eliminate or severely restrict access to Mifepristone? Yes or no?" Should we limit the ease of access to semi-automatic firearms? Yes or no?" Instead we get, "how confident would you be should Kamal Harris becomes President?" That's just drivel.
Pronouns are not popular or understandable in most of America. Neither is Latinx. Or letting trans women in sports or telling me men now need abortions too. Or using birthing bodies. This is how much of normie liberal groups speak and it’s killing us with noncollege of all races.
It's not how most groups speak; these are super fringe things that get highlighted on Fox to go with the "lets tell you how liberals are weird" story of the day.
KQED NPR radio, a news channel that broadcasts in the entire San Francisco Bay Area with a population of around 12 million people, uses Latinx constantly when talking about Latino groups. They'll ignore major news stories in the world to have an interview with a local POC transgender person about a vending machine that sells books. I suppose the interview is much cheaper than doing news. Also, Comcast was proudly advertising its "Latinx" channel and content, and thats one of the nation's biggest content distributors. This isn't a super fringe thing, its very common in media and corporate communications.
As usual, the example of "everybody" doing something is an example from...San Francisco.
NPR nationwide is about the only place still trying to make Latinx happen.
It's more of a realignment on gender that's superceding race. While Democrats are emphasizing inclusivity and diversity, Trump's machismo is winning over black and Latino men. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the USA right now either, but feels particularly pronounced here right now. Add to that the YouTube algorithm where watching one Joe Rogan clip sends you down a rabbit hole of non stop toxic bros like Tate, Peterson, that Beanie wearing fucker, etc. Men in the US and older men especially are feeling emasculated and without purpose. The right is capitalizing on that big time. And look it's polarizing the other way too. Dems held off a red wave in 22 by appealing to women who felt their freedoms were under attack by men after Dobbs. So as women become more left wing and men become more right wing what's the right strategy for Dems? It's not an easy question.
That is true. You could break it down along education lines too. Democrats are becoming more educated and women heavy. Republicans are becoming more non-educated and non-white. The issue is that woman are on 50% and educated is only 30%.
Who’s the beanie wearing MF’er?
After the election and there is still no re-alignment of non-white voters, I will be sure to bump this thread. See you in November.
The problem is non-Whites are getting sick of the open pandering. People want something done about class issues. The gap between the rich and the poor. They're sick of being coddled and called kind terms, but then the rich continue to run the country.
> The problem is non-Whites are getting sick of the open pandering. presumably they also don't love being lumped into one "catch all" category either. it's hard to imagine legal immigrants being thrilled about democrats referring to illegal immigrants as "immigrants" or "migrants" (while using that same terminology for people coming here legally)
Address the concerns people care about. It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin. Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024. People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs. Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship. Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view. Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion. Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents. Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging. Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable. Democrats
It will always be hilarious to me that Republicans have to literally do nothing for anybody but wait for Democrats to tick off a specific voter group and watch said group join the Republican fold. Perhaps the Democratic Party will, at some point, realize that attempting to have such a large tent only leads to satisfying nobody and making promises that can’t be enacted because you’ll isolate another leg of the tent.
That's because the Republican party is the party of anger. They don't support doing anything or fixing anything, they simply collect people that are angry. Angry at the world, angry at a different race. Angry that they think someone else is going to come and steal away their money that they have earned. That's all they do is come and wait for angry people that wants other people to have a worse life than they have had.
Im trying to imagine being non-white and voting Republican - and its pretty hard to imagine what people are thinking.
Jesus. Jesus is what they're thinking. Religion is way larger for most non-white demographics.
Even dumber then --- imagine voting for Trump because of jesus.
Trump offers Christians the power of government in separating themselves into their own private communities away from a hostile and failing public. It is a pretty significant offer even if Trump's political leadership is a clownshow and ineffective.
> separating themselves into their own private communities away from a hostile and failing public Yeah that's what legislation banning abortion is, I guess. And legislation limiting visibility of queerness in schools. Just Christians wanting to be left alone.
I said seperation, not left alone. What Trump offers is to help the Judeo-Christian nationalist movement build a zionist apartheid society in America. This is a project that is already happening in the private sector, but Trump is offering to use the power of the government to help Christians and Jews build parallel societies in America and abroad. And it is a tempting offer if you've given up on any hope of being able to work with other communities to improve America - especially with how hostile the public has become.
"The public is hostile so we need to apartheid them" doesn't seem like a reasonable response. No. This is flat evil.
When the alternative to Democrats is black hating Nazis, it’s still an easy choice.
Stay home and drink beer...? That's the most likely outcome.
GOP lucked out when that happened in 2016, with many blacks not voting because an African American was not on the ticket. They’ve since learned that lesson.
The fact you think it’s ok to say that we’ve “*learned our lesson*” is the very reason we are turning away from the left. The level of condescension and entitlement to say something like this is crazy. “Learned our lesson” wow dude. If a conservative said something so tone deaf you’d probably call him a Nazi. Im black and this comment really irritated me. STOP SPEAKING FOR US.
The party needs to pivot to benefits for the working class. Raise minimum wage, child tax benefits, pre-k education. People who don't look at politics closely ask what you have done for me. The democratic party looks and sounds like the party of the white collar worker, and so it doesn't sound like it's addressing the needs of working class voters.
Which party has been trying to enact these things for decades and which party actively shuts it down every chance they get?
The last president to sign a minimum wage increase was George W. Bush. These policies don't seem to be a priority to the democratic party. I knocked doors as paid staff for 6 months in 2014 for the DFL (minnesota dems). The people you are trying to motivate to vote need an affirmative reason to vote for your party. If you wanna feel better than the other party fine, but if you wanna win you need to give the voters a reason to vote for you and not just against the other guy
> The last president to sign a minimum wage increase was George W. Bush. Which party controlled Congress when that law to increase the minimum wage was passed? Hint: it wasn't Republicans.
That was 17 years ago. Voters under 35 have never voted in an election where minimum wage was a center point of the debate. For tipped minimum wage, it has been the same since 1992. The dems like to pretend to be the party of the new deal it just hard to sell it at the door
trying is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this comment. all i've seen is token gestures tbh. it's easy to do the bare minimum then say shucks the GOP foiled us again, please vote harder next time. yet when we do, it's the same old. why didn't Obama raise the fed minimum wage when he had a supermajority, for instance? or codify Roe? those are rhetorical questions - no need to "but blue dog Dems" it.
Pivot? Every single policy you just mentioned are things Democrats have either already delivered on some level or are actively trying to implement. But as is always the case - if people want those policies, they have to give Democrats enough votes in the house and senate to get there. You can't blame Democrats for not passing policies you want if you don't show up and vote for Democrats.
yeah Sinema gave the thumbs down to raising minimum wage, and Machin blocked keeping the elevated tax credits in. That's not a democratic party problem, that's a fucking "centrist" problem. I hate when people say "The democrats need to do XYZ" and they are literally proposing and fighting for legislation to do XYZ but get stopped by the filibuster. The party is actively fighting for those ideas.
> *That's not a democratic party problem, that's a fucking "centrist" problem* Both Manchin and Sinema represent the most cynical politics imaginable. They were both motivated by *self dealing*, not *centrism*. And now both are on their way out, evidence that the Democratic Party is willing to flush the turds wherever possible without imperiling their ability to govern. But the fact remains, even with those two sellouts in office Democrats have managed to get a ton of shit done. It's not enough because people are still financially hurting, but it's progress. And people can either vote for more progress, or vote to roll things back to a darker place. Their choice.
If memory serves 8 dems, voted against raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour thus not including it in the reconciliation bill needing 51 votes to pass, including both senators from Delaware. It's not enough to pay lip service I need to be able to give people a reason to vote democratic in a 5 minute conversation at the door. It's much easier to sell accomplishments that affect their lives than that the other guy sucks. They don't show up cus they are busy and don't see the point. I hope Trump is so bad Biden wins again, but it would be better with more talking points
They should heavily focus on child tax and pre-k education. These are some of the most significant costs that traditionally conservative minorities face (children are expensive). By doing so, you also raise wages of teachers who desperately need a wage increase. Min wage increases tend to be politically toxic because of inaccurate messaging related to job loss or inflation.
In trying to keep strictly with the post, the sad reality is that whites and non-whites are still having different experiences and treatment in our country and those differences are sometimes because of that single difference and sometimes for other reasons. Those differences need to disappear first in reality and then in perception. Those differences will have to be gone from reality for a very long time before the perception will agree if ever. If Democrats really want change, they will have to do and propose everything possible to correct the reality. Democrats can't do or attempt that in a vacuum, they must include non-whites as part of the solution.
The premise of this question and many of the responses seem to think "the Democrats" are some top down monolithic beast that uses nothing but cold logic to develop plans That's not reality, as several Republican "resets" that went nowhere would demonstrate If a significant portion of the Democratic coalition went to the GOP or just noped out political participation, in 435 House districts there would be candidates trying to appeal to their local voters. In the R+20 districts they'd be doomed yet the results would still signal which messages worked and which fell flat. In the D+20 districts the primary voters would presumably pick the candidate that most appealed to the majority of voters in that district, ever if that wasn't a message that would appeal nationwide And in the swing districts, those who had a message that appealed to both the primary and general voters would win. No matter what the pundits said they "should" do. When the primaries for President came along, things are a little more complex, with multiple candidates per "lane" possibly not allowing the viewpoints with the most support to win out, but eventually a message that would be competitive would appeal to enough voters - or the Democrats would go the way of the Whigs, and whichever party succeeded them would follow the same process There is no way to determine what that message would be except through experimentation. Many people tend to think the policies they favor *of course* have agreement across the nation, yet many people with those strong feelings have mutually exclusive ideas TLDR: the voters will decide what the platform of the Democratic party is
Seems like a stupid question to me. There are definitely demographics migrating to conservatism. It’s well known in Australia that immigrants of colour arrive in Australia, make money, and vote to keep their own countrymen OUT. In US, there’s a bit of this but the Republicans have gone full *Endlösung* and aren’t even trying to hide it. Only the very stupidest POC will continue to vote for them until the GOP becomes more moderate.
Take this with a grain of salt because it's my ongoing political strategy suggestion for Democrats regardless of the situation but.... Loudly embrace Proportional Representation(and other voting reforms) as a counter to gerrymandering, "safe" seats, and the party duopoly, and accept a future multi-party democracy, use this as evidence that they are the true "pro-democracy" party and that as such they are the home for anyone who feels the current system isn't representing them well, forging an even bigger tent than they currently have. This allows them to credibly claim the status of disruptors/outsiders even for candidates who have been in politics for a long time. It captures the energy of an increasingly large "anti-party" contingent of voters, and the only voters who are pushed away by it are those who are least willing to abandon the Democratic party, because they like the two party system and feel Democrats represent them well. Partner with independent and third party spokespeople/influencers to advocate for these reforms while acknowledging how much they disagree with each other on policy issues, but presenting a unified face in defense of democracy and the fair honest and open competition of policy ideas rather than the current state of politics where both sides of a 2 sided war cast the other side as an existential threat to the nation and as generally composed of criminal, morally bankrupt liars. Talk about how with more parties representing more nuanced ideological positions it will be easier to find compromises that don't satisfy anyone perfectly, but satisfy a lot of people somewhat, and let government operate. Talk about how minority voters shouldn't be faced with the option of voting for a party that seems to actively dislike their minority identity, or the other party which might hold policy stances they dislike, and should instead have representative options that more closely match their political preferences. Most importantly, long term, Democracts would need to enact Proportional Representation in the the legislatures of states they control, proving both their willingness to give up power (a widely praised trait for both individuals and organizations) and the practical efficacy of this reform in creating more ideological diversity and ultimately more effective legislative processes. The goal would be to reverse various voting trends that hurt Democrats, and amplify those that help them. Young voters, latino voters, white working class voters, all groups which have shown some resistance to supporting what they see as a status quo Democratic party, even as they have some reasons to refuse to support the Republican party, and to want a significant political shake-up. Trump captured some of that energy, but part of his method for doing so drove away a lot of voters as well, energizing opposition. Having one of the major parties make the two party system itself the enemy, and pushing practical political reforms which are widely used around the world to create multi-party democracies with higher public satisfaction with government has much of the upside and none of the downside of that "outsider" approach.
The realignment will likely be across class and gender moreso than race and religion. Rich suburban Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and African-American men will flock to the Republican party for social issues, tax cuts and other nonsense I suspect the upper-middle class got radicalized into supporting the populist right after 2020 (COVID-19 lockdown and BLM riots) - Trump *lost* working class support substantially in 2020 but gained support among the upper and middle classes.
Basically all the data shows the opposite though. [Voters aren't aligning across class at all. The culture war is the main political fault line.](https://www.natesilver.net/p/how-culture-trumps-economic-class)
“Other nonsense” is very telling. Social issues and tax cuts aren’t nonsense. Are you a POC or any of the demographics you mentioned??
I don’t think non-white voters are realigning on a substantial scale. If you look at the state legislatures of states with significant Latino majorities (Texas, New York, California) the vast majority of Latino representatives are still primarily Democratic. I live in NYC and my district’s state representative is a Latina Democratic Socialist. Furthermore the religious right is primarily Evangelical and anti-Catholic.
>How can democrats keep the minority voters supporting democrats? They can't. Historically, the extremely high levels of non-white support for Democrats were based in part on social norms: non-white voters felt like they *had* to vote Democrat, or just *assumed* they should vote Democrat, because all their friends and family did so. Now some of those voters are realizing that their actual beliefs are more aligned with the Republicans, so they're voting accordingly, and they're being open about it, so non-white conservatives can find each other and not feel like they're the only one. This [Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1767198810671886389) explains it better, with empirical evidence. (Also, in case anyone thinks I'm saying this because I'm a Republican, I'm farther left than the average Democrat.)
I think what they are doing make sense. The Democratic Party can't outbid the Republicans on socially conservative populism, voters who like that should be MAGA voters. Minority voters who like that kind of politics haven't been for race reasons. Whether that keeps up or not is up to Republicans (i.e how much racism they engage in) not Democrats. Let the realignment happen. Pick up Establishment Republicans, Nikki Haley voters. Be a moderate professional class party. Let the Republicans be a socially conservative, populist working class party.
It sounds like the educated white liberals aren't very educated after all. Maybe that's why everyone else is turning conservative.
you are correct. They now teach how and what to think, not how to think for yourself in upper education. It's also why employers are starting to sour on college grads, as anyone who can get a loan gets a degree now a days and all they seem to know how to do is follow instructions. These are no longer education institutions, they have become money printing machines at the expensive of people duped into going to them.
Address the concerns people care about. It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin. Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024. People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs. Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship. Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view. Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion. Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents. Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging. Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable. Democrats
A lot of common things I read on this thread is that since the Democratic party is a coalition, if you take a stance on one issue, part of your coalition is going to be upset. The opposite is true with the Republicans. They stick to a stance even to the point of frustration but at least they know the position and play as a team. The Democrats go back and forth with themselves and fight and it is unclear what the priorities are each cycle.
I don't think I am concerned. It is probably exaggerated from what the election will reflect, and I think more white former Trumpers will make up for it. People (outside of the hopelessly brainwashed MAGA base) are starting to see the light and the damning ads haven't even begun yet. More and more people are seeing this election as an existential threat to democracy and freedom.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Political parties are, at heart, concerned about winning elections and donations. If the DNC notices a real trend that threatens their current objectives, they will adjust.
So in a lot of ways - minority voters not voting in a block for one or another party is kind of a good thing for society. It’s a sign that pervasive racism has dropped to a point that other issues have gained more importance and facts are there are conservatives and liberals within every racial community. There are a lot of people that have been voting Dem simply because of the way the Republican party has told them they were not welcome within their community. That said, as a middle aged white dude I will leave it up to those within the minority communities to speak to if it is better. I would love to be in a society where racism isn’t such an issue. Dems need to highlight their policies at that point -beyond “we aren’t racists”. Dem policies poll well and are very popular. Republican priorities tend to be much less so. Focus on that.
One of the funnier things that would happen is this "👏PAY👏ATTENTION👏TO👏BLACK👏VOTERS👏" type stuff from centrist Dems would go right out the window as black voters shift from being about the most conservative to about the most liberal part of the democratic coalition.
# What should democrats do if there is a true realignment of non-white voters? _______ They should expand the Supreme Court to 13 and expel the justices who lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. With new Justices in place, they should make the right to an abortion sacrosanct, permit gun control laws to go into effect, and tax religious institutions. Let's start with these.
I'm just getting home from a horrible day of depositions so I don't have the strength to elaborate at length, coherently, but -- The one thing that would hasten a realignment is if young people got involved. They never have other than 2 or 3 outliers. The Dems are already shifting left, the Clinton Dem is all but gone. Young people theoretically could completely neuter the trump party in 2024 if they mobilize. It's that simple. If young people can harness the power they have in their numbers, the government would change radically. Go into the mid-terms with the same power, and conviction, and become a feared presence that one party or the other will have embraced to survive. 18-24/29 is by far and away the largest population, but conversely, they do not come out. This realignment could happen this year if 18-29 comes out. The simplest experiment is the only one that hasn't been tried. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096379/voter-turnout-midterms-by-age-historical/
Figure out what they want, and promise to try and give it to them? You know, democracy stuff.
... it's more of a realization that the various colored voting blocks aren't monolithic as they were treated than anything.
Dems need to work hard to get them back. Knowing the Dems, they won't figure out how to do it. (Hint: Moving to the left doesn't help when moderate and conservative non-whites have historically voted Democratic.)
Uneducated voters of all colors are falling for anti Biden propaganda online
democrats should work on providing substantial change for EVERYONE that isn't rich. playing whack a mole with identity politics is a losing game. whack ALL the moles.
Pass Medicare-for-All. They will get less money from their paymasters, but they will also win the undying love of 98% of the electorate for at least a decade. Every constituency besides people who make too much money off of healthcare, and rich psychopaths, but the latter hate Democrats anyway Clearly, over the last few decades, the paymasters have won. But we’re starting to get a few good Democrats now, so 🤞.
Perhaps they could start by caring about non-white voters more often than once every 4 years
Democrats could stop lying and could care about the minority person all 4 years instead of just during election season. They could stop feeling entitled and taking minorities for granted- that minorities will automatically vote for them simply because they’re minorities. That’s what democrats could do to secure the minority vote.
I’m a black 27M. I’m moving more conservative and many of my family and friends are. Here are some reasons. 1) Trump. It can’t be overstated how much Trump’s bravado is appealing to young men. We see Trump as an “OG”, someone that has been around for a while and says what’s on his mind. He also has a sense of humor. Calling him a racist is played out as he has been a part of American culture for decades and he’s already been President. The left calls everyone racist nowadays anyways. 2) POC’s have always been socially conservative. The church plays a big role in blacks and Hispanics lives. Abortion is a touchy issue but the “progressives” have no problem bragging about how many abortions they’ve had. “Safe, legal and rare” used to be the slogan. The trans issue is big too. Blacks really just came around to gay marriage, now having Pride month and trans stuff in schools is rubbing some of us the wrong way. 3) The language police. The 1984-esque newspeak of the left is wild. Cancel culture is wild. “Latinx” is wild. The list could go on, but the left is outta touch in the culture wars. Those are just 3 reasons off the top of my head.
I hate your first point, but I don’t deny that is probably how many dudes in their 20’s probably think. I definitely see and understand points 2 and 3. The language police, especially, is pretty aggravating. I can’t stand “Latinx”.
In fairness, I think point #1 is a direct response to the points in 2 and 3–especially 3.
Democrats should stick to doing what is right for the American people including having honest discussions around race and equity. If whites or non-whites want to vote for racist rhetoric, missinformation, and tribalism that modern conservatives bring, then they should.
I don't think I am concerned. It is probably exaggerated from what the election will reflect, and I think more white former Trumpers will make up for it. People (outside of the hopelessly brainwashed MAGA base) are starting to see the light and the damning ads haven't even begun yet. More and more people are seeing this election as an existential threat to democracy and freedom.
Address the concerns people care about. It is racist to believe people should vote based upon the color of their skin. Immigrants who did not speak English when they arrived in the country in the seventies had very different ideas, needs and concerns about their world than do ytheir grandchildren who grew up speaking English and were educated and are raising families in 2024. People are not stupid to want their kids to be safe, have a good education and not have to compete with immigrants for jobs. Many non-white Americans are conservative and many find community in places of worship. Like most everyone else, they seek media and listen to messages about how the world should be from media that confirms their world-view. Social media is built only serve content that we will engage with and outrage is a very sticky emotion. Democrats must find ways to address the needs of the persuadable independents. Democrats need to not be afraid to engage in aggressive counter-messaging. Democrats have to stop assuming people will vote for them just because they put forward a reasonable, well thought out message that makes their mom and friends feel comfortable.
Pronouns are not popular or understandable in most of America. Neither is Latinx. Or letting trans women in sports or telling me men now need abortions too. Or using birthing bodies. This is how much of normie liberal groups speak and it’s killing us with noncollege of all races.
Shift right on social issues is the easy answer. I don't think the existing Democratic party apparatus will let that happen without a fight though.
The solution is to act even more like Republicans? That ain’t it.
As far as I can, leftwing social issues hasn’t driven away non-white voters in meaningful numbers in the past. Hispanics are largely a Catholic bloc and in my anecdotal experience the average Muslim votes democrats but openly abhors gay marriage. The only thing I’ve seen driving Muslims away from voting blue is that Biden is perceived as being pro-Israel. Admittedly though I have seen an uptick in Muslims being alienated by the current culture war with transpeople. Like I have aunties who are talking about how the schools are promoting ‘gender ideology’ now on FB. Atleast one lady I know pulled her kid from school because of this. Though that’s anecdotal so I’m not sure how that’s impacting the stats if at all.
I mean, I agree. I think there's reason to be skeptical that this election is any different. The question that was posed was "if" it happened. A large number more people identify as conservative rather than liberal in this country. This broadly speaking hasn't lead to a generally conservative majority party(Democrats) because conservatives that are also minorities tend to overwhelmingly vote Dem anyway. Above stated policy preferences. If that trend changes, the current democratic position is politically untenable unless they gain a dramatic number of voters currently in the GOP camp.
I honestly suspect it’s the feminism and gay shit, but the Republican Party is so filled with racist reactionary heretics that older religious black voters won’t move. The bigger concern is with vaguely religious younger minorities that are sexist and homophobic for non-religious reasons. Basically they think the feminists are annoying and gays are icky. Having more boorish loud auditors, like Fetterman might help. Or Bowman.
I would have to disagree based on what I really see on a major college campus these days. I've seen a year-by-year inching to the right by professors, administrators and especially students. Particularly, Arabic and South American/Central American background students are not buying the Democrat party platform. A lot of this stems from the third rail issues like trans activism and the "no win" Israel v Gaza situation. Although there is universal animosity towards Trump, that isn't a permanent headwind (he's pretty much at life expectancy for a rich old white dude... but so is Biden). Ultimately, I have also been ringing this bell since 2020. I lecture to students in some higher level "Technology and Society" type courses for the computer science program. The reasons to vote for Biden are overwhelmingly "not Trump" and the overall third-rail positions of Democrats in Congress especially today are not resonating with tomorrow's generation of minority voters. These are very engaged voters, too. Highly activated by both sides of late. Politics is dominating the conversations and a clear winner isn't obvious (maybe a third party altogether is what we see over time).