Why are Democrats Losing Minorities?

[Chainsawmassacre]

Again, not a single other country ever recognized them. Even Britain backed away after 1862.

And that’s important why?
Fact is Brits wanted their cotton and despite slavery was more than happy to buy it from them.

 

[vegas giants]

There is one actually. A gift from Virginia.

How nice for them

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

The South was in no shape to try and fight another war, and if it had done so it would have been crushed even more decisively. The “Night Riders” collapsed immediately when confronted by actual soldiers, which is why southern conservatives tried so hard to keep the government from intervening against the Klan.

Oh, and Versailles was WAY more lenient than what Germany inflicted on its defeated foes.

Without reconciliation and reconstruction who knows what would have happened 20 years after the South was defeated. The South could have risen again.

 

[Tigerace117]

And that’s important why?
Fact is Brits wanted their cotton and despite slavery was more than happy to buy it from them.

Because it shows that the secession was never actually seen as legitimate by the world.

Fact is the South got arrogant and thought the demand for cotton would force Britain and France to support them .....and as it turned out, the Brits were more than happy to just buy from Egypt.

 

[Tigerace117]

Without reconciliation and reconstruction who knows what would have happened 20 years after the South was defeated. The South could have risen again.

Former Confederates would take over state legislatures, implement laws which denied African Americans their constitutional rights, and create death squads which would carry out routine attacks for the next century?

Oh wait, that’s what happened when the South was treated softly.

If the South would have risen again it would have been crushed again.....decisively.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Because it shows that the secession was never actually seen as legitimate by the world.

Fact is the South got arrogant and thought the demand for cotton would force Britain and France to support them .....and as it turned out, the Brits were more than happy to just buy from Egypt.

Union blockades forced Brits to stop doing business with the south not some sudden burst of altruism.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Former Confederates would take over state legislatures, implement laws which denied African Americans their constitutional rights, and create death squads which would carry out routine attacks for the next century?

Oh wait, that’s what happened when the South was treated softly.

If the South would have risen again it would have been crushed again.....decisively.

And the north turned a blind eye for decades. The Union was always the primary objective. How the south treated blacks was ignored as much as possible for as long as possible. There was fear for decades the South would once again rebel if dealt with too harshly. It’s easy for us now to not understand how deep the fracture between the north and south was in that era.

 

[vegas giants]

And the north turned a blind eye for decades. The Union was always the primary objective. How the south treated blacks was ignored as much as possible for as long as possible. There was fear for decades the South would once again rebel if dealt with too harshly. It’s easy for us now to not understand how deep the fracture between the north and south was in that era.

There is no need to have statues to these traitors now

 

[Tigerace117]

Union blockades forced Brits to stop doing business with the south not some sudden burst of altruism.

The British Navy, if fully committed, likely could have punched through the Blockade. The British chose not to, because domestic opinion flat out would not allow them to go to war to support slavers.

 

[Tigerace117]

And the north turned a blind eye for decades. The Union was always the primary objective. How the south treated blacks was ignored as much as possible for as long as possible. There was fear for decades the South would once again rebel if dealt with too harshly. It’s easy for us now to not understand how deep the fracture between the north and south was in that era.

Which it shouldn’t have, but it was too busy indulging in “reconciliation”. It listened to people like you, who called for a light hand with the South....and the result was tyranny.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

There is no need to have statues to these traitors now

How about the Jefferson statue recently torn down? Is Washington next?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

The British Navy, if fully committed, likely could have punched through the Blockade. The British chose not to, because domestic opinion flat out would not allow them to go to war to support slavers.

Whatever the reason for not choosing to go to war with the north Brits wanted slave cotton. Didn’t bother them a bit.

 

[vegas giants]

How about the Jefferson statue recently torn down? Is Washington next?

Take em all down for all I care

 

[JohnnyDollar]

I'm suggesting that the way to convince people or change their minds, doesn't include consistently insulting them.

Yeah, well don't tell that to MSNBC. They'll call you a racist.

 

[Tigerace117]

Whatever the reason for not choosing to go to war with the north Brits wanted slave cotton. Didn’t bother them a bit.

It certainly did, because they never saved the CSA like the South wanted.

 

[ultmd]

Interesting. Voting patterns were similar, but minorities turned out significantly less in 2021. It's not the way I expected it to show up, but the result is the same.

Huh? Turnout wasn't down. Turnout was HIGH....at or near record-setting highs across the board....in the 2021 Virginia governor's race....INCLUDING among black/brown voters.

Again, Youngkin won by flipping the suburbs (and, by increasing rural turnout, according to the above link).

Actually, the site is not arguing that. It is taking it as an observational fact and asking why it occurred.

"The site" isn't arguing anything.

The author of that particular opinion piece is trying to make a case that cannot be supported based upon the information he's providing. His broad, sweeping assertion (or, what you call an "observational fact").....is based entirely upon the 18 or 19 "non-white women" from a single focus group.

Which is (again) simply ridiculous.

Rephrase and try again.

No, I'm good. You should be, too.

Ridiculous was about the kindest assessment I could offer. Honestly, "absurd" would have been more appropriate.

The site is about as non-Republican as they come.

"The site" has nothing to do with the OPINIONS of the columnists who contribute to the OPINIONS section of any publication.

It's an OPINION piece, Jay. The New Yorker employs and publishes OPINION columnists from left and right.....just like every other major news organization (WSJ, NYTImes, WaPo, Bloomberg, AP, etc. etc). The ONLY time "the site" speaks for itself is when the Opinion Editorial Board publishes a piece (i.e. an "Editorial").

Why do conservatives have always have such difficulty understanding the differences between NEWS and OPINION?

Except it was true.

No, it wasn't.

• In 2016, the Black vote went 89%/8% against Trump.....the Latino vote went 66%/28% against Trump
• In 2020, the Black vote when 87%/12% against Trump.....the Latino vote went 65%/31% against Trump

So again, minorities are NOT leaving the Democratic Party for Trump. That is (and was) a false narrative. Pure political propaganda, served up BY AND FOR the FauxNews crowd, who clearly ate it up without giving something as crazy as that a second thought.

But I do understand why Trump voters BELIEVED (and, apparently, still do believe) that lie. It's the mentality of a cult.

You inserted your own interpretation. The quote does not say consistently.

You're right. The exact quote (which I wasn't trying to restate in my original remarks) uses the word "overwhelmingly".

But you're being silly, here.

Not sure what difference you see between "consistently" favoring Democratic policies..... and "overwhelmingly" favoring Democratic policies....but apparently you do.

I challenge you to distinguish between favor in terms of culture and value and having greater trust.

Seriously?

You don't have to trust a person or group in order to favor that person or group (as in a political election). That's the literal meaning of the "lesser of two evils" axiom that has become so popular among voters these days.

Did I really need to tell you that?

 

[ultmd]

If you mean that I did not express an opinion, that is correct. I left that to the source.

You offered no facts, and you know it. You posted an OPINION piece, that you (apparently) didn't know what an OPINION piece.....and expected the OPINION of that OPINION piece to stand as the relevant FACTS for this discussion. However, the only FACTS presented are the results that 98 person focus group.

The point, again, is that the sweeping conclusions of that OPINION piece were absurd, given the paucity of FACTS it provided....AND, given all of the available exit polling data from (literally) 10's of thousands of votes, that rebuts it.

It's not absurd at all. It's a small study so you draw limited conclusions and ask larger questions, such as is this local or part of a pattern?

You're making my point. Look at the title of the article. Look at the title of your thread. Read the article, which makes assertions and draws conclusions based upon a focus group that included 18 or 19 "non-white" women.

It doesn't "ask questions". Not even one.

It draws absurd conclusions.

What would be absurd is to dismiss it entirely because of personal bias.

Who has said anything about personal bias of the author? Other than you?

The reasons to dismiss it as absurd have been outlined, in detail, by me in this thread. Personal bias of the author is irrelevant. And, for the record, Ryan Grim is considered (if anything) to be more on the left, than on the right. He just wrote an absurdly superficial column this time. You just like it because it fit into the narrative that conservatives like you have been promoting since Trump came on the scene.

This is a bizarre comment. Republicans fought to abolish slavery. The Confederacy was made up of former Democrats.

Gotta comment on this response (even though you are talking to the Tigerace).

Yes, GOP'ers fought to abolish slavery....BUT, Conservatives DID NOT!

Why do modern GOPers love to claim the history and legacy of Liberalism when it suits them?

When it comes to history, party labels mean nothing. Ideology means everything.

You and I both know that Republicans were the LIBERALS of the 1800's (and the early 1900's), and that the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES. And we both know that the two parties FLIPPED ideologies in the 20th century. So we both know that it was CONSERVATIVES (not liberals) who supported slavery....and created the KKK during Reconstruction....and enacted 100 years of Jim Crow after Reconstruction....and who opposed every Civil Rights Act in the 50's and 60's, as well as the Fair Housing Act, etc. etc.

So if you know these FACTS, why play dumb in response to what the Tigerace said?

I see no reason why Lincoln would not embrace modern Republicans.

Then you must've failed History classes in grade school.

 

[Credence]

I am a mutt and an Independent and vote for the person rather than the party. My personal desire would be for a moderate third party created by centrists from the Dem party and the GOP. I will probably never live to see it

One thing I know for sure is that Trump will NEVER garner the majority of minority voters

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And look now you're agreeing with CRT that the country was founded in total racism. What argument will you make up next?

I wish people would stop polarizing with this "CRT" nonsense.
Again, media wallpapering of CRT disappeared after the Virginia elections, almost entirely.
It's a ****ing DOG WHISTLE.

And the point is, no reasonable persons want Junior traumatized or wracked with guilt on the way home from school every day because Junior is a white kid.
Nothing of the kind, people simply want to take an honest look at ways to make the system more equitable.
You know, a few years back there was a drama series called Mad Men, and that show took a look at slices of life in the 50's-60's and 70's and created a remarkably accurate
picture of how the system worked back then, for women, people of color, people with different sexuality, different faiths and people of different classes, cultures and generations.
The series did not demonize these persons, it simply gave us a mirror.
I grew up IN that era, the 1950's, 60's and Seventies.
I was there.
The show was pretty damn accurate.

Whatever you want to call it, the idea is to illuminate mistakes in the system and explore how to make this a better society for all, nothing else.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You offered no facts, and you know it. You posted an OPINION piece, that you (apparently) didn't know what an OPINION piece.....and expected the OPINION of that OPINION piece to stand as the relevant FACTS for this discussion. However, the only FACTS presented are the results that 98 person focus group.

The point, again, is that the sweeping conclusions of that OPINION piece were absurd, given the paucity of FACTS it provided....AND, given all of the available exit polling data from (literally) 10's of thousands of votes, that rebuts it.

I just don't know how to thank you adequately.

 

[Jay59]

You offered no facts, and you know it. You posted an OPINION piece, that you (apparently) didn't know what an OPINION piece.....and expected the OPINION of that OPINION piece to stand as the relevant FACTS for this discussion. However, the only FACTS presented are the results that 98 person focus group.

It is not an opinion piece, as anyone who glances at it can see. What it is is a post-election study, to try to determine why the results were other than expected.

The point, again, is that the sweeping conclusions of that OPINION piece were absurd, given the paucity of FACTS it provided....AND, given all of the available exit polling data from (literally) 10's of thousands of votes, that rebuts it.

Again, not an opinion piece. It's post-event analysis.

You're making my point.

I'm glad someone is.

Look at the title of the article. Look at the title of your thread. Read the article, which makes assertions and draws conclusions based upon a focus group that included 18 or 19 "non-white" women. It doesn't "ask questions". Not even one. It draws absurd conclusions.

Fine. Attack the messenger. Don't try to determine how to improve your candidate's electibility.

Who has said anything about personal bias of the author? Other than you?

I commented that this was a source friendly to Democrats. Is there a point?

The reasons to dismiss it as absurd have been outlined, in detail, by me in this thread.

You have made that attempt, though not convincingly.

Personal bias of the author is irrelevant.

Always.

And, for the record, Ryan Grim is considered (if anything) to be more on the left, than on the right.

He is considered to be far to the left. Why are you bringing this up?

He just wrote an absurdly superficial column this time.

This is not a column. This is a think piece, an analysis.

You just like it because it fit into the narrative that conservatives like you have been promoting since Trump came on the scene.

Descending to ad hominems again.

Gotta comment on this response (even though you are talking to the Tigerace). Yes, GOP'ers fought to abolish slavery....BUT, Conservatives DID NOT! Why do modern GOPers love to claim the history and legacy of Liberalism when it suits them?

This one is easy. It's because the legacy of liberalism fits Republicans more than Democrats even though Republicans don't like the title.

When it comes to history, party labels mean nothing. Ideology means everything.

You're digging a deep hole with that shovel.

You and I both know that Republicans were the LIBERALS of the 1800's (and the early 1900's)

Still are.

and that the Democrats were the CONSERVATIVES.

There was no party that fit the modern term conservative. The Whigs were probably closest. Statist maybe.

What's with the Capital letters?

And we both know that the two parties FLIPPED ideologies in the 20th century.

No. Your hole is getting deep.

So we both know that it was CONSERVATIVES (not liberals) who supported slavery

and you are filling the hole with

I hope you brought a paddle.

....and created the KKK during Reconstruction....and enacted 100 years of Jim Crow after Reconstruction....and who opposed every Civil Rights Act in the 50's and 60's, as well as the Fair Housing Act, etc. etc. So if you know these FACTS, why play dumb in response to what the Tigerace said?

I'll quote you on this one

Then you must've failed History classes in grade school.

All your history classes.

 

[iguanaman]

Question is why were minorities ever democrats in the first place? I've never understood why the party of the Confederacy, the KKK and the party that filibustered the civil rights bill became the go to party of minorities.

You live in a alternate reality where the Republican party is not the party of racists? All republicans may not be racists but all racists are Republicans. Actually it is the minorities that are not swayed into voting against their own best interests. 95% of Americans are better off under Democrat policies. The GOP only caters to the top 5% in reality. They are the ones that benefit from corporatism and tax cuts on the top brackets.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

You live in a alternate reality where the Republican party is not the party of racists? All republicans may not be racists but all racists are Republicans. Actually it is the minorities that are not swayed into voting against their own best interests. 95% of Americans are better off under Democrat policies. The GOP only caters to the top 5% in reality. They are the ones that benefit from corporatism and tax cuts on the top brackets.

That’s the democrat narrative in a nutshell. Truth is Republicans want equality of opportunity while democrats demand equality of outcome. It’s really just that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

There is a long article in the Intercept based on a Virginia focus group, following the recent election.

It’s Not Just White People: Democrats Are Losing Normal Voters of All Races

Democrats fear they are losing white swing voters over racial politics. Three studies suggest that the party’s elite culture may be the real problem.

theintercept.com

The lede is down the page a bit, but the site highlights it. Here is a longer excerpt.

What Barefoot found is that while the women agreed with Democrats on policy, they just didn’t connect with them. When asked which party had better policy proposals, the group members overwhelmingly said Democrats. But when asked which party had cultural values closer to theirs, they cited Republicans. The biggest disconnect came on education.​

​

Bear in mind that this is one study, only of women, and only in one state. However, this is a fundamental difference. For a highly liberal site to admit it is telling.

I would rather vote blue than red.

 

[ultmd]

It is not an opinion piece, as anyone who glances at it can see. What it is is a post-election study, to try to determine why the results were other than expected.

....obviously "anyone" doesn't include you. You're a fakenewser, obviously.

It's an opinion column, Jay. I'm not debating this with you. I'm telling you.

You're just demonstrating what I've been saying (about you, and conservatives like you), which is that you people LITERALLY can't distinguish between NEWS and OPINION. You've all been thoroughly brainwashed by the way FauxNews has blurred the lines between news and opinion for the last 25 years.

Again, not an opinion piece. It's post-event analysis.

No, it's an opinion piece.

The presence, or lack thereof, of "analysis" is NOT what differentiates an OPINION piece from hard news.

But again....THANK YOU for helping to illustrate what I've been saying all along.

You have made that attempt, though not convincingly.

....you're projecting.

What you've done is post a single opinion piece, and a bunch of baseless conclusions...with no FACTS.

What I've done is discredit your arguments by posting FACTS.

• You claimed that minority turnout was down...that was untrue. It was UP and I posted the FACTS to prove it.
• You claimed that it was true when Trump claimed that black voters were leaving the Democratic Party to vote for him in 2020.....that was a LIE (and I posted the FACTS to prove it).
• You claimed that a single focus group of 18 or 19 "non-white women" who ALL voted for the GOP candidate in a single election....proves that "Democrats are losing minorities". I illustrated to you that your OP, and your thread title, were both based upon an ABSURD "analysis". No combination of 18 or 19 "non-white women".....in one state....who all voted for the same candidate..... can be surmised to reflect the entirety of minority voters in the U.S.

He is considered to be far to the left. Why are you bringing this up?

???Are you confused, or just deflecting again?

The bias of the "source" was YOUR point, not mine.

And Ryan Grim isn't considered "far left", except to people like you....and your opinions don't matter.

This is not a column. This is a think piece, an analysis.

....words that mean nothing. This is just babble, Jay.

It's a column. "Think piece" means nothing, other that to signify that (like most rightwingers) you like to make up stuff.

Again...you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. That's the take-home message you're sending to everyone in this thread.

Descending to ad hominems again.

This is both dumb and pathetic.

I said that you like the column because it re-affirms the false narrative that you and other Trump voters (about black voters leaving the Democratic Party to vote for Trump) heard before the 2020 election. And your response is to whine about it being an "ad hominem" attack on you?

Seriously?

Not one word of that could be remotely construed as an "ad hominem" attack on you, Jay.

Stop with the pathetic whining, already. Geez...

This one is easy. It's because the legacy of liberalism fits Republicans more than Democrats even though Republicans don't like the title.

This is just silly.

Republicans today are the party of racism and bigoty. They are the part of OPPOSITION to civil rights and voting rights. They are the pro-Confederate party. They are the white-nationalist party. They are the anti-woman/misogyny party. They are the anti-immigration party. They are the Christian Nationalist party. They are the party of FASCISM in America.

All of those traits, which are objective, verifiable FACTS....represent the "historical legacy" of CONSERVATISM in America.

So you're either confused/brainwashed/"miseducated".....or just dishonest. But clearly one of the two.

You're digging a deep hole with that shovel.

Sorry, but FACTS don't "dig holes", they bury them.

If you could rebut what I've said, you'd do it.

You won't, because you can't.

Deal with it.

Still are.

Not even in the "classical liberal" sense.

Again....lying or confused/undereducated.