Obama has pushed the "white man" too far

[Ranb]

Hmmmm, how many guns has Obama managed to grab?

Ranb

 

[marplots]

Hmmmm, how many guns has Obama managed to grab?

Ranb

At least two. Michelle's got a couple of nice guns on her.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Godwin quote in the OP. So this thread was Godwined before even being started.

Yah, I couldn't see it. My bad.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Correct me if I misunderstand - you seem to draw this conclusion from the last two mid-term elections. Isn't that classical cherry picking? Or do you have other data sources?

I'd like some confirming evidence that your assertion is true before we address the issue of "why"?

In all fairness, the Democratic Party share of non-hispanic white votes has been slowly shrinking for decades. At the same time however, other groups are voting in increasing rates making a white-only approach a losing situation. A black-only, asian-only and even hispanic-only approach would also be a losing proposition. The only way to win now is by having broad based appeal across all racial lines.

One interpretation of this data is not that the Democratic Party is becoming anti-white, but that the Republican party has increasingly become the party of white-only concerns and that those concerns are at odds with other racial demographics.

Also interesting is that since the 1990s age demographics have become increasing polarized. The young increasingly go liberal, the older conservative. In the early 1980s even back into the Civil Rights Era the youth vote generally matched up with their other demographic indicators among actual youth voters. Age now has a bigger correlation with voting habits than being white, while black has a bigger correlation than age. This could indicate that white concerns are becoming less of an issue despite recent falls for the Democratic Party, but the same does not hold true for black voters.

A little tidbit, comparing the 2008 to 2012 elections Obama had bigger losses among young black males (18-29) than he did young white males. This meant he went from winning young white men to losing them, but only losing part of his spread for young black men. In those crowds exit polls correlated these losses to concerns over surveillance and too much military action. It is not till the 45+ ranges does immigration and economic concerns become correlated with losses of white voters. The losses among different education bands for Obama tended to be correlated more with non-racial issues as well. Explicitly mentioning racial concerns as reasons for whites not voting for Democratic politicians has actually been happening less in exit polls over recent elections rather than more. In many ways, the more extreme dips for white votes for the Democratic Party since 2010 can be attributed to dips in lower income and younger age voting rates. A sort of bounce back from the new high of 2008 voting rates.

As for Michael Savage's claims of a sleeping lion being awakened, I think he is way off the mark. Considering the comparison to Germanics, I think by white he is specifically meaning Anglo rather than the more modern US definition of white as European. As much humor as there is out there about WASPs, and that Anglo-Americans still hold on to the reigns of power and wealth in this country (our President for instance is an Anglo-American), individuals by and large are less self-empowering themselves by Anglo identity. Waving the Anglo banner isn't going to rally a passionate response. Having to share isn't the same thing as being oppressed. While many will continue to grumble and be motivated by such changes, it isn't going to elicit a response such as Savage suggests without a strong racial exceptionalism mentality among the target group. Most of those holding to beliefs in Anglo exceptionalism tend to keep it quiet and out of the public. This isn't strong enough to inspire a racially motivated war among the general Anglo population.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Correct me if I misunderstand - you seem to draw this conclusion from the last two mid-term elections. Isn't that classical cherry picking? Or do you have other data sources?

I'd like some confirming evidence that your assertion is true before we address the issue of "why"?

I put up a link to back my assertion, so perhaps a source to counter it would be appropriate, one that shows Dems aren't losing white voters. Isn't that the way it works?

Here again is a link to NPR's interview with a Dem demographer who is with a Dem think tank:

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/02/374511123/democrats-problem-white-working-class-voters

 

[Armitage72]

Hitler wasn't white?

According to Michael Savage, Hitler was also a scientist.

Back in 2008, I think, he played a clip of Bill Maher complaining about the scientific illiteracy of US politicians. Savage's response was "You want scientists running the government? Hitler was a scientist. That's the sort of person you want running things?"

I've also heard him criticize a female politician in California for wearing jeans in public. It's pretty obvious that his mindset is firmly set in the 1950s. It's like the episode of MASH in which Frank Burns was shocked by his wife sending him a picture of herself wearing... slacks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, my point didn't really have anything to do with kids sitting in a lunchroom. Just out of curiosity, why do you think working-class whites are abandoning the Democrats?

Because the Republicans are scaring them with racist arguments.

 

[Ladewig]

People like and hate Savage for the same reason: he's willing to run with the philosophy to the bitter end and express the consequences. Most who share his ideas are unwilling to take the elevator to the bottom floor.

Glen Beck is like that too. He'll grant the distasteful outcomes of his libertarian leanings and still stick to the plan. Both are like the old-school Catholics - "But if we don't allow birth control, the starving poor will simply continue to breed and be stuck in their poverty." "Yep," says the Pope, "We can accept that."

Other commentators back-pedal when they get to the "uncomfortable" zone. They temper their idealism with mature reflection and compromise. Not Savage. Not Beck. Not the Popes of old. And this unyielding stance is attractive to some - mostly those who aren't happy with nuance, who take the clarity as refreshing and honest. Sad, that.

Ok, I understand that people can carry the birth control issue to extremes and argue the issue toward un-nuanced outcomes. But I am lost on the issue in the opening post; what does "pushing the very, very quiet white man" mean?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Do you really believe this is a permanent phenomenon?

Permanent is a pretty strong word, but the Dems are clearly looking to minority/illegals for votes and future votes right now, and with the Republicans helping them flood illegals into the country for the Chamber of Commerce, the number of white voters leaving the Dems can't possibly keep up with the number of immigrants coming into the country over time, I don't think. (Note that Boehner's strongest words are always against "executive" amnesty, not plain old amnesty.)

If Jeb gets the nomination as expected, he should bring in more Hispanic votes - which aren't out of reach right now like black votes - to the Republicans because he is completely out of the closet on immigration. (I'm from Texas, and there are so many Hispanics there, and have been for so long, it is silly to call most of them anything but "Texans".) Once a "path to citizenship" no longer means a bunch of mostly new Dem voters, Republicans in Congress and their constituents will be far more likely to support citizenship for those who have been in the country for a while. Americans want the border secured as much as possible, though, and I think both parties can expect to see a huge backlash over immigration in the coming years like we're seeing in Europe right now. FWIW, I think we should be copying Australia, not Europe.

 

[NotJesus]

Ok, I understand that people can carry the birth control issue to extremes and argue the issue toward un-nuanced outcomes. But I am lost on the issue in the opening post; what does "pushing the very, very quiet white man" mean?

It's straight racism. Why does it even matter what the supposed issue is?

 

[SezMe]

Permanent is a pretty strong word, but the Dems are clearly looking to minority/illegals for votes and future votes right now, and with the Republicans helping them flood illegals into the country for the Chamber of Commerce, the number of white voters leaving the Dems can't possibly keep up with the number of immigrants coming into the country over time, I don't think. (Note that Boehner's strongest words are always against "executive" amnesty, not plain old amnesty.

Take a look at Figure 1 and get back to me.

 

[marplots]

Ok, I understand that people can carry the birth control issue to extremes and argue the issue toward un-nuanced outcomes. But I am lost on the issue in the opening post; what does "pushing the very, very quiet white man" mean?

It's code for a certain worldview many individualists/libertarians share.

"Live and let live"
"Do your own thing, just don't interfere with me."
"Your rights stop when they intrude on mine."

And so on.

The image is of a patient, everyday joe, who just wants to make his own way in the world without interference. He'll ignore a great deal, until... you push him too far. That's what Savage is on about, an overwhelming response to pent up, accumulated outrage. The heroic common man who bore up against a thousand cuts until he couldn't bear any more.

I read it as a silly, idealistic call to arms. But his listeners hear their own imagined attributes in that. It resonates with them.

"We are the noble proletariat, the salt of the earth. The truck drivers, and factory workers, and farmers (not the agrabiz type, but the mom and pop type). Our values are what made America great and the sweat of our brows keeps America strong..."

It's fiction of course. But what the heck. Say enough nice things about me and I'll agree to whatever else you want to sneak in.

 

[Foolmewunz]

In all fairness, the Democratic Party share of non-hispanic white votes has been slowly shrinking for decades. At the same time however, other groups are voting in increasing rates making a white-only approach a losing situation. A black-only, asian-only and even hispanic-only approach would also be a losing proposition. The only way to win now is by having broad based appeal across all racial lines.

The actual figures don't bear this out.

'76 with 89% of voters as "white", Carter got 48%
'80 / 88% - Carter 36 (3rd party year - Anderson)
'84 /86% - Mondale 34%
'88 / 85% - Dukakis 40%
'92 / 87% - Clinton 39 (Ross Perot a whopping 21% of white voters*)
'96 / 83% - Clinton 44% (Perot only 9 in his second, half-assed run)
'00 / 81% - Gore 42 (Nader's 3% could be counted "Dem")
'04 / 77% - Kerry 41%
'08 / 74% - Obama 43%
'12 / 72% - Obama 39%

There are explanations and anomalies, of course (Mondale being so low is because he got stomped in just about all categories, for instance) but it does not bear out "Dems losing share among white voters is you simply look at "white" and not specific white sub-groups.

*Interesting '92. The only year the "white" turnout goes up as %. This was the "good old boy" election. Bill Clinton, Geo HW Bush, Ross Perot. Blacks stayed home. If, as was discussed at the time, the Perot voters were a mixture of disaffected Dems and disaffected Repubs, Clinton might've have 50% of the white vote. And that ain't so long ago.

But after Clinton, Gore and Kerry and Obama I were all around 43 %. You could argue that "that's the downward trend", but it's just going back to previous levels.

The important trend is the overall white %. What was the turnout in '12, about 125 million. Back in '76, 100 million of those votes would've been white. In 2012, you lose 20 million in the bloc. And the trend is solid, other than in the "Good Old Boy" election year.

 

[coalesce]

People like and hate Savage for the same reason: he's willing to run with the philosophy to the bitter end and express the consequences. Most who share his ideas are unwilling to take the elevator to the bottom floor.

Glen Beck is like that too. He'll grant the distasteful outcomes of his libertarian leanings and still stick to the plan. Both are like the old-school Catholics - "But if we don't allow birth control, the starving poor will simply continue to breed and be stuck in their poverty." "Yep," says the Pope, "We can accept that."

Other commentators back-pedal when they get to the "uncomfortable" zone. They temper their idealism with mature reflection and compromise. Not Savage. Not Beck. Not the Popes of old. And this unyielding stance is attractive to some - mostly those who aren't happy with nuance, who take the clarity as refreshing and honest. Sad, that.

It is sad, yes, but it's also radio gold. Howard Stern has always said that one of the keys to his success was the ability to take a position on an issue and not waver from it. Doesn't make a difference if he was right or wrong, just take a stand. The difference between Howard Stern and Glenn Beck and Michael Savage is that Howard's is a comedy show* and he knows the majority of the audience is in on the joke. The ones who lose sight of that are the ones who call in to argue and therefore feed the show.

Michael

*Not that you would know it's funny nowadays. He's just mailing it in now.

 

[marplots]

It is sad, yes, but it's also radio gold. Howard Stern has always said that one of the keys to his success was the ability to take a position on an issue and not waver from it. Doesn't make a difference if he was right or wrong, just take a stand. The difference between Howard Stern and Glenn Beck and Michael Savage is that Howard's is a comedy show* and he knows the majority of the audience is in on the joke. The ones who lose sight of that are the ones who call in to argue and therefore feed the show.

Michael

*Not that you would know it's funny nowadays. He's just mailing it in now.

Ha! That reminds me of something I read about Rush Limbaugh. Supposedly, the top two reasons people listen to the show were:
1) I agree with him so often
2) I disagree with him so often

You're right - clarity of message is radio gold.

 

[Ladewig]

It's code for a certain worldview many individualists/libertarians share.

"Live and let live"
"Do your own thing, just don't interfere with me."
"Your rights stop when they intrude on mine."

And so on.

The image is of a patient, everyday joe, who just wants to make his own way in the world without interference. He'll ignore a great deal, until... you push him too far. That's what Savage is on about, an overwhelming response to pent up, accumulated outrage. The heroic common man who bore up against a thousand cuts until he couldn't bear any more.

Ah, thanks. Leaving aside the irony of their claiming to live by live-and-let-live, isn't the rational response to being pushed further and further to say something early on, or to push back with a proportional response, or to do anything other than silently fume before exploding into a level of violence seldom seen outside of a battlefield? Savage's audience really likes this stuff?

 

[BStrong]

I don't feel "pushed" by much of anything, but maybe that's because I'm Sicilian and you know what they say about Sicilians.

 

[dudalb]

That's the first time that I've ever seen anyone claim that Hitler underestimated white men.
What colour where the Ubermensch? The old B&W footage is clearly misleading.
Those Aryan Nation guys are going to be furious.

He did underestimate those he considered Untermensch,but most of the Untermenschn he underestimated would be considered white...Russians being the prime example.

Savage is so extreme that many rightwingers stay away from him.

 

[marplots]

Ah, thanks. Leaving aside the irony of their claiming to live by live-and-let-live, isn't the rational response to being pushed further and further to say something early on, or to push back with a proportional response, or to do anything other than silently fume before exploding into a level of violence seldom seen outside of a battlefield? Savage's audience really likes this stuff?

I've listened to him. He educated and a good speaker. Controversial enough to keep my interest, but leavened with a lot of personal stories and non-political stuff. He's opinionated but comes off as someone you wouldn't mind having a beer with. I think he's got a PhD in biology or something.

In short, it's easy to overlook the sins - usually. I haven't listened in awhile, and I'm not a fan, but at one time it was better than anything else on the late-night AM dial.

I'm pretty sure you could stream one of his shows online. He's pretty popular.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't feel "pushed" by much of anything, but maybe that's because I'm Sicilian and you know what they say about Sicilians.

They are fond of the scent of lavender, that's what I heard about Sicilians.