White men shun Democrats

The Albany Times Union ^ | March 27, 2010 | David Paul Kuhn

[2ndDivisionVet]

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors. This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

[Cacique]

I think the coup has already taken place. I fear the elections in November have already been “fixed” or they may not take place altogether. These are Marxists who have taken over. We have to stop calling them “liberals” or “democrats”. Call them what they are, Stalinist communists.

[GOPsterinMA]

Because many women have bought into having the government provide for them. They want an expansion of big government, and King Soetoro wants give away the store, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Simple economics, actually.

[driftless2]

Real men instinctively react negatively to someone offering to burp them and wipe their rears for them. In short, real men reject the nanny-state.

[Kegger]

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.


Perhaps we will see a turnover in congressional seats of the magnitude of the 1932 elections, only this time in favor of Republicans.

[neverdem]

Geesh, what's the deal with these airhead women who still support Obama?

If I had to bet, they are probably single, childless or only have female children.

[GOPsterinMA]

Or are getting govt. assistance, usually many times over.

[Altura Ct.]

Oh boo hoo go cry to the Black Caucus or the Hispanic Caucus or the hundreds of other anti white race based groups.

[neverdem]

I think the coup has already taken place. I fear the elections in November have already been “fixed” or they may not take place altogether.

It's very hard to fix elections outside of urban strongholds. IIRC, Charlie Cook made a note of 84 Congressional Districts that split their votes, i.e. they voted for a rat in the House, but voted for GWB in 2004 or McCain in 2008. All those districts are in the NRCC's crosshairs this year. So we should be able to tell if the elections in 2010 were "fixed."

If the 2010 elections are cancelled, it will be the equivalent of the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854. Did you ever hear of the terms Bleeding Kansas or Bloody Kansas? If they cancel elections, then I believe that multiple episodes of The Battle of Athens will probably happen spontaneously, IMHO. All bets are off after that.

[rmlew]

Modern liberalism is a conspiracy against white men. The 38% are retards or traitors.

[hinckley buzzard]

There must be a central editorial board that creates and decides which way “they will go”

Ever listen to Rush when he has one of his collection of echo chamber soundbites from the media? They all latch on to some word or phrase, and it just goes from one loudmouth to the next, maybe a dozen different talking heads, in unison.

Quite impressive, really, in a weird sort of way.

[Mojave]

Wow, this thread is really outing your kind.

[Nachum]

The list, ping