Hillary Clinton's White Male Voter Problem

Karl Savage is the kind of guy that makes top Democrats nervous. He lives in a working-class neighborhood, with a cigar-store Indian perched on his front stoop and a carved Harley-Davidson sign on his garage. He's voted in Democratic primaries, he's older, he's white—and he does not care for Hillary Clinton. Not one little bit.

He made this very clear, in fact, to a Clinton campaign volunteer who rang his doorbell recently only to watch the front door close on him just seconds into his pitch. A short while later, his wife, Pamela, offered this explanation before similarly shutting the door: "We're not interested. We don't like her."

So while Republicans fret about their party's outreach to Latinos and other minorities, this one Saturday morning door-knock encapsulates the fear among leading Democrats: Their party no longer speaks to white people, particularly white men, and they could lose the White House because of it.

"Democrats are hemorrhaging those voters and need to figure out how to stop the bleeding," said Mo Elleithee, a former top Democratic National Committee official who now runs Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service. "There could come a point where Democrats cannot afford to lose any more white voters. It's in the interest of Democrats to be taking steps to reverse that now."

Elleithee pointed to Florida, where President Obama's 2-and-a-half-point 2008 victory narrowed to a 1-point 2012 win, which then became a 1-point loss in Democrat Charlie Crist's run for governor in 2014—even though the Crist campaign hit its turnout targets for African-Americans and Latinos.

Steve Schale worked on all three campaigns. He said it makes more sense to increase support from whites just a little bit than trying to boost support from minority groups a lot. "Take Hispanics alone: Every point of white share you lose, you have to win Hispanics by 4 to 5 points more" to make up for it, Schale said. "In '08, we knew if we really focused on keeping whites above 40 (percent), we couldn't lose. To me, that makes more sense than always trying to cobble out a tight win. And at some point we are going to max out (with) Hispanics."

Meanwhile, Republican pollster Bill McInturff scratches his head while watching all this hand-wringing over a demographic group that will continue to decline in significance. For one thing, he said, the 27-percentage point advantage Republicans built among white men in 2012 is probably about as bad as it can get for Clinton, given that a sizeable percentage of white men are white-collar liberals.

McInturff has prepared an analysis that even increases the Republican advantage with white men, to 31 percent, and decreases the GOP's disadvantage among black and Latino voters slightly. But it still shows Republicans losing the next election by 3 points.

So to him, it's not even worth debating whether Clinton should work to appeal more to white men, which her husband Bill Clinton successfully did 23 years ago, rather than the "Obama coalition" of urban whites, young people, and minorities.

"The hell with it," he said. "For all the trees that have been killed by the press about which strategy she should pursue, her campaign is doing exactly the right thing. There's not a choice. She's pursuing the one strategy that will win the presidency."

Whether Democrats need to worry about Clinton's support among white men or not, her weakness with them is already turning up in polls of early-voting Iowa and New Hampshire, both of which are overwhelmingly white.

Prominent Iowa pollster Ann Selzer cites a May survey that showed Clinton leading Sen. Bernie Sanders by 40 points among women—but by less than 10 points among men—in the Democratic caucuses. In the New Hampshire primary, Sanders is actually running even with Clinton among men, said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos.

Why this is happening is less clear. Democratic pollster Peter Hart said that while Latino and black men tend to be firmly in the Democratic fold, white men are typically more conservative and Republican in ideology.

Kathy Sullivan, a former chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, suggested it might be the topics Clinton talks about. "Perhaps men are not as interested in early-education issues, or women's-health issues," she said.

"I hate to say it, but I think it's because she's a woman," said Tim Molan, a neighbor of Savage. "I grew up in an age when women were supposed to be seen and not heard. It's a different world, and she helped forge it." "I think men have a problem with strong women," agreed Paula Pierce, another neighbor.

Her husband, Mark, said many of his male coworkers at United Parcel Service, particularly the ones who did not attend college, distrust her and fear Clinton will have little regard for people like them. "She's got so much money," he said.

The irony for Clinton is that lesser-educated, working-class whites became her base of support in the spring of 2008, as she won primaries in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia in her last battle for the Democratic nomination. In one infamous interview with USA Today, she focused specifically on white voters: "Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening."

Paula Pierce said that history proves that male dislike for Clinton does not come from a good place. "So it was the lesser of two evils. A white woman over an African-American," she said of Clinton's 2008 late spring surge. "We need more women. We've got way too much testosterone flying around.

I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Escobar. Nor would I vote for her in her former life when she was Pablo Escobar.

Every accusation to her is immediately disclaimed to be all lies created by a vast right wing conspiracy. This is exactly what Pablo Escobar said about the very legitimate attacks on him from the media and the government. Pablo was very left wing and often claimed he was in ideological step with the Marxist revolutionaries of Colombia who ostensibly fought for the poor, meanwhile he was a billionaire with stolen money. This is the identical M.O. of Hillary Escobar. She is all very radical and class conscious, about equal pay, minimum wage, health care, war on women and police shootings of black males - meanwhile she sold both her office and her husband’s to the highest bidder and they have over two billion dollars in a phony charity account. Not a dime of tax paid. She took money from nations who won’t even give women names, let alone human rights! Her administration watched race riots burn cities which had not happened in 50 years! Yeah - she represents the poor and oppressed! Coincidence - I think not!

Pablo Escobar, either bribed, blackmailed or murdered his way out of any criminal indictment for as long as possible. Now Hillary Escobar, takes bribes from foreign heads of states, her husband unabashedly pardons drug dealers and tax cheats after receiving their “donations” and holds the Obama Administration in a mutual death-balancing act that prevents any department of justice investigation into the pay to play uranium deals, quid pro quo payments for Ethiopian war lords to come off the human rights abusers list, or any one of the dozens of naked cash for favors transactions that turned the Dept of State into a common brothel. Fifty Shades of Grey in the Lincoln Bedroom? No indictment? No Investigation? She is Hillary Escobar - with the uncanny ability to commit monstrous crimes and walk away unscathed.

Pablo Escobar viewed himself as a savior and a very real presidential candidate for the Republic of Colombia. He actually was in the Colombian Congress for a short time.

Hillary Escobar views herself as a savior and a very real presidential candidate for the United States of America. She was actually in our Senate for too long a time.

Pablo Escobar viewed himself outside the regular laws that Colombians had to abide by - therefore when he surrendered and pled guilty to one tiny crime - he was allowed to build his own magnificent prison, staff it with his own guards, and leave it at will to watch soccer games. Jacuzzis, satellite TV, gymnasiums, personal chefs, rock bands, even weddings catered there, and dozens of telephones to manage his coke empire.

Hillary Escobar, as Secretary of State, refused to abide by the laws and regulations that all US Government employees must abide, by creating her own computer server where she could hold all her own emails including all State Department business, personal messages, all the bribes she receives from all over the world, all the illegal deals through which she sells her office, and then smugly stores it at her own home away from the lawful and watchful eyes of the guardians in the government. And when the time comes - just delete the incriminating emails. So much like her former self - when she called herself Pablo - that it is eerie. Coincidence - I think not.

Pablo’s enemies suffered many indignities, and many lost their lives through torture and shootings if they got in his way.

Hillary Escobar’s enemies, apart from those who suffered from Arkancide, those whose FBI files were illegally distributed, those who her press lackeys deliberately destroyed on her orders, or were humiliated in other forms, then tortured and possibly killed. She let 4 men die in Benghazi to protect her political backside and that of Obama’s - and now lies about it to this day. Same similarities, the tiniest slight is met with a tidal wave of retribution - just like Pablo.

Pablo Escobar bribed judges and journalists. His calling card was ‘plata o plomo’, silver or lead!

Hillary Escobar receives cash tribute from journalists, with the complete understanding that these toad-eaters must honor their patron, if they ever want to “survive” in this business. Why is Stephanopolous giving her $75 grand? How many other journalists have paid her tribute? Why are they paying her? They are all in her web, they are all owned by her, just like the serfs making cocaine in Pablo Escobar’s jungle labs! How can they be objective journalists? The game is rigged, we are living in Colombia, the year is 1989, and it is Hillary Escobar running things! Everything you read or see about her, is a lie, written by liars who are serfs in her slums.

Hillary and Pablo Escobar are one and the same transgendered person.

I am not even going to mention Mena.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.