Don't respond. Don't get sucked in. I refuse to contribute to any thread that's anti Hill, anti Bernie, anti Dem. Unfortunately, people here are all too willing to take the bait mainly cause their feelings are hurt about their personal favorite candidate. Fuck that shit. I ain't falling for it.

I need to do better.

But you know what? The people who hate Bernie are my political allies. Just as people like me who think the party could use some change are their political allies. No point in fighting with each other. Can you imagine us and the Brits in a two year pissing match about who should be Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces? Maybe that analogy is a bit overblown, but I don't think so. The fate of the country is at stake if you ask me...

I think one may have to go back to 1964 for the last time the Dem candidate for president won a majority of the white female vote.

but not as heavily as white men. The data I found didn't break down race by gender, only race or gender.

A slight majority, around 51%. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/virginia-politics/governor-exit-polls/?utm_term=.5df61575541b

Demographic factors are not race baiting.

Big split among white women voters is married vs unmarried. Married women tend to be more conservative (I've talked to a few that said that their husbands decide who they vote for)

I'd also like to see it split by age.

But yes, I have often heard that single women tend to vote for Democrats. And older voters tend to favor Republicans; that was true in VA.

did better than Hillary.

You can't use a comparison as you have in order to state one did better than the other. Northam was over 500,00 votes short of the mark Clinton hit.

....I love Hillary Clinton...not knocking her but hoping white women have reconsidered supporting the GOP Party and that can help us in coming elections.

With percentages available I’m still willing to state more showed up for Clinton. Statistics cannot be used like this in a meaningful way.

I agree with your overall point. I do not question your motives or honesty. I know that is often the go-to here even under minor disagreements(not you).

Found it...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/virginia-politics/governor-exit-polls/?utm_term=.227f466c3d6d

Clinton got more women to the polls than Northam.

Clinton 1981473(.56)=1109625
Northam 1405177(.61)=857158

Any additional context would have to include additional information.

I was going with averages of m/f above as it hovered around 50 for both elections. If I would have taken that into account, which would be the accurate way to do it, Northams numbers would slightly go down and Clintons would slightly go up.

Guns & God. Notice how the religious men are speaking for the meek, men battered women at Southerland Springs. They will stick with guns.

would vote GOP in 08 and 12...mouthed 'voting for Obama' at me...some of these men are very controlling.

more people cared about information and data. It seems that repeating narratives, even false ones, is too often a greater priority that analysis based on evidence.

has solidly been "Dems are losing white men." It was all we heard for a while.

And focus on GOTV and our real base, women, primarily AA women and POC.

So all the posters pleading for us to cater to the white working class are living way in the past.

Cutting losses is the goal. Otherwise the positive margins elsewhere mean little to nothing.

Yesterday we were propped by independents turning against Trump. That's all that happened. Not dependable going forward. Maybe 2018 but not beyond. Incumbents receive massive benefit of a doubt, especially if the economy is solid. We need to get that white share back up to 39 or 40%.

7 out of 10 white males are conservative repugs. It's crazy to risk losing some of our base to pander to these hardcore repugs who haven't voted Democratic for decades.

Who do we sacrifice — African-American women, progressive whites, Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, LGBTQs, Muslim-Americans, the handicapped, left-leaning independents?

Who? Because to pander to conservative whites we have to tamp down and move way right from our championing of issues important to our aforementioned base in order to attract repug voting whites.

So who is it gonna be? Oh, I get it now, the eternal bogeyman, the favorite target of Interstate Crosscheck vote suppressors and racist, killer, white cops everywhere — African-American men. Surely we can do without them, right? I mean they're used to being discriminated against anyway. Lose some of them and they'll hardly be noticed, huh?

Not smart.

What's smart is to keep up our determined get-out-the-vote effort and add a just as concerted effort to combat the vote suppression tactics of those very repugs you want to try to attract.

Again, last night's results point to a winning formula. People have seen trump and his incompetents in action and they don't like them. If our tactics ain't broke, don't fix 'em.

Plus there's no Comey lurking in the weeds to sabotage things at the last minute, unless you count the Our Revolution and Democracy for America ilk.

voters into considering the "no labels" approach and becoming Independents. Then we Dems need to pull them into our party or at least into voting for their best interests (which is the Dem party's interests). The GOP is of great assistance in this regard ...

Minimizing the losses does seem important from the figures above. It is interesting, however, that Dems did better with whites in some losing years than winning years. There is a conundrum, however, since many white men seem to interpret any message of inclusion and diversity as a threat to them.

Just as important if not more so is working to stop or limit voter disenfranchisement. That also means knocking it out of the DNC (eg. Nomiki Konst).

Sounds rather exclusionary. Also not a winning strategy.

PS: "POC" isn't a meaningful term.

THe trainer was talking about the Rising American Electorate (RAE) that Dems should target.

They are
Under 30
People of color
Unmarried women

(married women tend to vote more conservatively-- I've talked to several married women who said they vote how their husband wants them to)

I'm not sure that younger married women lockstep with their husbands as reliably as older ones do. Of course that would need to be broken down by education level and income also if it were to be truly useful info.

The married women I've talked to who said their husband decided the vote were all over 50. This is purely anecdotal and I have no data to back that up.

I'd also like to see it broken down by region, race, and religion.

(Of course religion is hard to determine since no state has it on their VR form--- my profile in VAN identifies me as Christian but I'm agnostic).

Almost never see guys...we had one guy in 16... he was really good...came from a different area but very experienced and he was it in terms of guys...the ladies knock on doors, brave the dogs...I had a guy threaten to sick a dog on me once when I was working Obama's 2008 campaign...I work my ass off every election, and I am so happy about yesterday. Auto union does a great deal though and they are mostly men.

Facts?

And we see repetition of false points that Dems won white male voters until recently. I saw such a post today.

In a significantly less diverse nation, we had to be doing better than that with whites in the down ticket races to be able to rack up the majorities we were getting in the US House and Senate and at the state level.

That you believe something doesn’t necessarily make it true. I wonder if you are assuming white men comprise a larger percentage of the electorate than they really do?

Democrats dominated white voters during Jim Crow. The South was a one-party region, all Democrat. Democratic presidents until LBJ, including FDR, enforced segregation. And that is the time we are told that the Democratic Party stood for people who really matter.

The fact is Democrats win without a majority of white voters. White men are important, just as all voters are. What some object to is that they aren’t considered the most important.

In 1972, the electorate was about 90% white. McGovern only won 37.5% of the vote in the presidential election but the Democrats won 52.1% of the vote in the US House elections. Assuming Democrats won 90% of the non-white vote (which is probably about right - McGovern got 87% of this demographic), Democratic House candidates had to have won about 48% of the white vote to get up to 52.1%.

In 1984, the electorate was about 86% white. Mondale only won 40.6% of the vote in the presidential election but the Democrats won 52.1% of the vote in the US House elections. Again assuming Democrats won 90% of the non-white vote (Mondale won 87% of this demographic), Democratic House candidates had to have won about 46% of the white vote to get up to 52.1%

In 1988, the electorate was about 85% white. Dukakis only won 45.6% of the vote in the presidential election but the Democrats won 53.3% of the vote in the US House elections. Again assuming Democrats won 90% of the non-white vote (and this is probably too generous - Dukakis only won 82% of this demographic), Democratic House candidates had to have won about 47% of the white vote to get up to 53.3%

No one is saying that Democrats will ever win the majority of the white vote or should even try - but given the way federal and state legislative seats are allocated and that the diversity in demographics is not evenly distributed across the country, the Democrats would certainly be in better shape getting 40% or better of the white vote than letting their share continue to slide into the 30s.

Democrats were in about the mid 40s with white males and the after electing an African American President in 08 comes a 4% drop in 2012.

Then we had a post Nixon bump in '76 that quickly dissolved in 1980 with Reagan. Who had opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

I thought it was common knowledge by now that no Democratic presidential candidate has won the white vote since LBJ.

People born in 1964 are turning 53 this year. That is not recently.

This data shows that claim is false.

Just wondering, because I haven't seen it.

Then the fact is the entire discussion since the GE loss has been about catering to white men and Trump voters in particular.
People would not be insisting that the party deprioritize civil rights and reproductive rights in order to "win" if they did not believe white male voters were more important those groups that do break for Democrats. The entire political culture of the past year plus has revolved around a relentless focus on white male privilege and prosperity, with those earning far more than most Americans cast as oppressed and forgotten. "Working class" has come to be defined in ways that exclude the great majority of low- to middle-income workers and instead focus on the top 21% (a household income of $100k, which Trump won) and upward.

Now people are certainly within their rights to advance their own interests, as well they should. But they should do so from a position of reality rather than false narratives. Unfortunately, we live in a political culture in which evidence and fact are avoided at all costs if they interfere with convenient narratives.

of discomfort with demographic voting patterns.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9821028