dagblog - Comments for "Voting while white: the flyover on the wall"

Interesting. We could have

Flavius — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:51:47 +0000

Interesting. We could have guessed that inhabitants of a ghetto vote similarly. This supports that with respect to "whites". Maybe true for all groups: Hasids, Mexican-americans, LA Koreans. Maybe not.

Or at least true at some times.

Cause and effect might be difficult entangle purely from the data.. To what extent is a locality vote uniformly because individuals are conforming with their neighbors or conversely because they moved there in order to be with people who thought like them?

I recall James Michael Curley being elected when, deservedly, in jail. Perhaps just to stick a finger in the eye of the Cabots and Lowells.

Obviously professionals know the answer in some cases . Part of Trumps success was due to his digital people being better than Hillary's. Which may have been a Hillary-specific problem. Brad Delong who was supposed to run the numbers for Hillarycare became disenchanted with her executive skills.

Debating yourself requires no

rmrd0000 — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:51:35 +0000

In reply to So you debate with yourself?

Debating yourself requires no effort and merely confirms what you already believe.

Debating allows one to realize that voter suppression may explain the Hillary Clinton loss in Wisconsin

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/

But voter suppression does not fully explain losses in other states.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016.

(added link after posting. I couldn’t remember where a read the article)

Hillary lost the ground game. She did not focus on outreach.

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/blog/clinton-lost-ground-game-view-trenches/

Community outreach in African-American neighborhoods paled in comparison to 2008 and 2012

If you debate yourself and make jokes about racists and focus just on voter suppression, you may miss the lack of community outreach.

But when you debate yourself, you have all the answers. Just like some had on the position of Camille Paglia.

There's a bit of spin in your

ocean-kat — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:47:40 +0000

In reply to P.S. Comes to mind that one

There's a bit of spin in your link but it's essentially correct. Hispanics are not democrats natural allies. They only vote democrat because of republican racism and even than a much higher rate than other minorities. Absent republican racism a majority would vote republican. They are more religious than other ethnicities. They are less likely to support abortion rights. By every metric they are less educated than any other group in America.

Agreed, we need to figure out

rmrd0000 — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:41:45 +0000

In reply to I agree we should address

Agreed, we need to figure out the 17% of black male voters who supported Gillespie as well as why white voters are so different.

I agree we should address

Flavius — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:18:24 +0000

In reply to My point is that whites don’t

I agree we should address that question. Simply reviewing the data by state might tell us a lot-either confirming our preconceptions or conversely revealing that some of them are prejudices.

So you debate with yourself?

rmrd0000 — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:56:39 +0000

In reply to P.S. Comes to mind that one

So you debate with yourself?

Edit to add:

Ever get it wrong when you debate yourself?

Not interesting in debating

rmrd0000 — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:44:01 +0000

In reply to Seems to me that much

Not interested in debating it.

We get that. The earth continues to revolve.

P.S. Comes to mind that one

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:36:08 +0000

In reply to Seems to me that much

P.S. Comes to mind that one could also verify the flip side of this by looking at where GOP concentrated voter suppression efforts targeted at people of color, those are the swing areas. If they were smart GOP operatives, that is, not just dummy racists going on racism alone. If they are dummy racists they wouldn't care if they targeted an area where regardless how many come to vote, it still only goes Dem.

And also that it's not just lily white people who vote swing, Reagan Dem style. Puerto Ricans do too. And lots of them just move to FL, speaking of changing "districts" by people movement, or not as the case may be

Seems to me that much

artappraiser — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 01:22:53 +0000

In reply to Voting while white: the flyover on the wall

Seems to me that much discussion on this thread is ignoring the main point of Edsall's piece on how Trump won, most pointedly in this excerpt and graph. Trump won via electoral college by targeting small towns and suburbs.

These are not communities where blacks or other minorities are a majority so they cannot affect the results in those areas without some white votes to go along with them. You can have 100% turnout for a Dem presidential candidate by "the black community" in a community that is largely of color, and this will not stop a Trump. It's because these small partly xenophobic or partly racist communities have a larger influence than they should have on the presidential race. Turnout of more black voters from largely black communities or more immigrants from a largely immigrant community will not affect the presidential race a whit, not without some of these whiter districts:

Dravosburg and Elk County are representative of the thousands of overwhelmingly white communities that shifted sharply to the right in 2016. This shift can be seen in the accompanying graphic, provided to The Times by Myron Orfield, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity there.

The graphic ranks, left to right, the percentage of whites in every municipality within the nation’s top 50 metropolitan areas. The red line shows where Trump did less well than Romney and where he did much better.

Trump trailed Romney in the majority of municipalities, just as he did in the national vote: Trump won 45.93 percent of the total vote last year, 1.2 percentage points less than Romney’s 47.1 percent in 2012 (third party candidates in 2016 picked up slightly more of the vote than they did in 2012). At the point when the percentage of whites in a municipality in the chart reaches 85 percent, Trump’s margin begins to soar, hitting its highest point in those municipalities that are close to (but not quite at) 100 percent white.

Will Stancil, a research fellow at the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity who created the chart, explained to me in an email that

nationally, Trump mostly lagged behind Romney. But in the limited selection of communities where his message hit home, it really hit home, with large gains over Romney really running up the score. These places were very heavily white.

Orfield described the charts in an email:

Trump’s vote skyrocketed in very white suburbs. In the more racially diverse suburbs, particularly those that had been diverse for more than a decade, the white vote for Trump did not increase over Romney’s vote. But in the very white suburbs, particularly in very segregated areas of the Midwest and Northeast, Trump’s vote jumped enormously over Romney’s.

The very white municipalities that voted so strongly for Trump believe that they have reason to worry about the racial stability of their neighborhood.

In the end, it's the same thing as for most blue staters: turnout in presidential doesn't really count for much.

As for the long term prognosis: continual integration of ghetto communities of whites, blacks or inbetween. That means, along with Indian or Mexican or Khmer immigrants coming to a small white town near you, BUT ALSO not bitching about those gentrifying white lesbians who move into the black 'hood, those are the kind of things that are going to beat the gerrymandering problem. As is the continual growth of the demographic of mixed race citizens who are so mixed that they no longer identify with a single racial or ethnic identity group. Give up the physically-based tribalism and a Trump can't play his physically-based culture wars games. (And then we'll move on to real genuine economics and class based games! Education uber alles. Once robotization really gets moving, I'm willing to bet on uneducated blacks and whites with solidarity against the educated elites like we've never seen before. H.G. Wells Eloi and Morlocks finally come to fruition.)

That's my view of it. Just offering an interpretation, take it or leave it. Not interesting in debating it. Those interested in debating it should take it up with Edsall and the political scientists he quotes.

When I point out that 17% of

rmrd0000 — Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:14:56 +0000

In reply to Our leading "reach out to the

When I point out that 17% of black males in Virginia supported Gillespie and suggest homophobia (or possibly anti-immigration sentiment) played a role, there is no problem. Suggest racial bias as a problem among white voters and there is pushback. Democrats have a winning group of voters. The party is not always wise in how it goes about energizing it’s base. Whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians are tired of the GOP. Rally those voters and we win. Keep going after white voters who have turned against the party and we lose.It is simply how to get the best return on investment.