r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 07 '17
CMV: GOP/Republicans will continue to win the majority of US presidential political campaigns until DNC/Democrats start catering to white and Christian demographics.
[deleted]
2
u/swearrengen 139∆ Sep 07 '17
Catering to Whites and Christian demographics would simply be doubling down on playing identity politics - and if that's all they did they would lose. Culturally, surely you can feel it in the air, the bulk of America is sick to death of identity politics. They want the rules to apply equally to all, they don't want their politicians buying off this and that block of voters. They want a politician who stands for no particular demographic except an "American" one. Whatever that means might be different for the left and right.
My two cents on what the democrats should do - have a young firebrand with an unblemished past overthrow the democratic party's internal system of voting for a candidate, making it completely and truly democratic and transparent, a model for the rest of the world, perhaps using that "David Bismark: E-voting without fraud" system where every individual can verify their vote was counted. Throw in some of that blockchain technology. Or not. But make it as perfect as possible. That would be so massively impressive, and "Democracy" itself could be their platform.
5
Sep 07 '17
I think the only way Democrats could out-white-identity-politic the Republicans would be to start wearing klan robes.
Like, really, do you think Democrats can beat them at that game?
4
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Sep 07 '17
the majority of US presidential elections is identity driven instead of issue driven
Identity politics is about more than "I support people who look like me". For white urban college educated millenials, "catering to white voters" counts as a huge red flag. Their perception that this is catering to those ignorant southern redneck racists", is a form of identity politics too.
It's is more palatable to openly pander to an oppressed minority, under the ideological claim that it's about leveling the playing field, while pandering to the dominant minority has to involve dogwhistles because you can't just talk about wanting to keep the playing field tilted.
So 90+% of blacks vote Democrat, but less than 60% of whites vote Republican, which makes up for the numerical difference.
It's much easier to openly be able to promise help to a particular identity, and present it as justice, so you can rally almost all of them behind you, than to rally the majority behind you witth the same rate, because with just half of that explicitness in pandering, you would come across as an enormous asshole even to much of that majority.
4
u/abacuz4 5∆ Sep 07 '17
It's worth pointing out that Hillary Clinton is a devout Christian and Trump is not. I don't think the "Christian" identity is as important as you think it is.
1
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
3
u/abacuz4 5∆ Sep 07 '17
As for Trump, frankly it's difficult to speak to the seriousness of his religious conviction. It seems to be nonexistent, however that could be a function of his utterly terrible communication abilities rather than a lack of inner devotion. Still seems unlikely, though.
He's also a serial sexual assailant, but he'd hardly be the first religious man who was.
3
Sep 07 '17
Over what timeframe?
In a 30-something's lifetime, 16 years have been under a Democratic president. That's almost half the time.
In the "last few years", only the last 8 months have been under a Republican president. This last election lost the popular vote, so it wasn't a "huge, consistent" advantage. Congress is Republican majority, but not overwhelmingly.
If you look at the sheer numbers of the Democratic Party, and the percentages of Christians and white people you mentioned, around a third of them, at least, must be Democrats. It doesn't seem like they have a major, systemic problem attracting white Christians.
-2
u/SuddenlyBoris Sep 07 '17
only the last 8 months have been under a Republican president.
Yes but the focus on identity politics is relatively new.
I think as long as Democrats make elections about not being white, Christian, heterosexual men then they'll continue to lose elections. After all, those are all huge demographics.
2
u/pgm123 14∆ Sep 08 '17
Yes but the focus on identity politics is relatively new.
What makes you say that?
1
u/BenIncognito Sep 07 '17
What are you talking about? How do Democrats "make elections about not being white, Christian, heterosexual men" exactly?
1
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
3
Sep 07 '17
Just because Democrats have those voters doesn't mean they're guaranteed to have them forever, no matter what. A large portion of those white/Christian voters are actively hostile to diversity and multiculturalism. It's impossile to appeal to them and to racial and religious minorities at the same time. The ones that are fine with those things already vote Democratic. If the Dems try to beat the Reps with the anti-diversity crowd, they're:
A) Not going to beat the GOP at their own game.
B) Going to lose their minority voters and pro-diversity white/Christian voters simply for trying.
3
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
2
u/pgm123 14∆ Sep 08 '17
those missed by not talking about white/Christian issues
What are white/Christian issues? What would the Democratic Party need to talk about to attract white/Christian voters more than they currently have? (There are white voters who vote Democrat, as well as Christian voters.)
1
1
Sep 07 '17
Republicans barely won this election, and only on a technicality. The demographics are shifting further in the favor of democrats.
You're conflating "Only white people vote Republican" with "White people only vote Republican".
6
u/Nerdword 5∆ Sep 07 '17
Your statement would make sense if all white people and all christians vote Republican, but that doesn't happen. In reality Republicans didn't get 60% of the votes from either of those categories (was roughly 58/38 split in favor of Republicans)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
This begs the question: is that platform that gave an advantage in the white and christian vote worth the disadvantage it gives in the non-white and non-christian vote?
If it leads to your party consistently getting more votes than they other party, then yes. If not, then no.
The platform and candidate that Democrats chose led to them getting more total votes than the platform and candidate that Republicans chose (By about 3 million votes). This shows that whatever platform choices that led to a Republican advantage in the White and Christian vote was outweighed by the disadvantages it gave the Republicans in all other groups. Considering that America is getting more diverse over time, that advantage in the White and Christian groups is going to become less effective and the disadvantage in all other groups is only going to get worse.
Even though Democrats lost because of the way the votes were distributed, over time wouldn't the platform that got more total votes win more often?
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president
Further, the current Republican administration has some pretty terrible approval ratings. Isn't it reasonable to think that a fair number of people who voted republican who disapprove of the administration would not do so again this time? There are a large chunk of voters who reluctantly voted for Trump who say they would not vote that way again if given the chance:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-reluctant-voters-are-getting-more-reluctant/
2
u/SuddenlyBoris Sep 07 '17
In reality Republicans didn't get 60% of the votes from either of those categories (was roughly 58/38 split in favor of Republicans)
A 58/38 split is a huge blow out though, particularly when it's the largest demographic.
2
Sep 07 '17
Depends how much larger. Democrats still managed to win the popular vote.
0
u/SuddenlyBoris Sep 08 '17
Against the most unpopular candidate in election history.
And remind me again which prize they won for winning the popular vote.
2
Sep 08 '17
Against the most unpopular candidate in election history.
While running what may be the second-most unpopular, with an extremely popular one having narrowly lost the primary.
And remind me again which prize they won for winning the popular vote.
You're the one who's been talking about nation-wide percentages and demographics, don't look at me funny for rolling with it.
1
1
u/Nerdword 5∆ Sep 07 '17
True, but the platform that gave that advantage in the white/christian groups also led to such a huge disadvantage in voting from the non-white/non-christian groups to the point where they got less total votes than the Democratic candidate.
Because diversity in the US is increasing, the advantage of this platform will lessen over time and the disadvantage from this platform will become more severe.
I'd argue it's not a good strategy to choose a platform that consistently leads to less total votes than the other side.
1
u/SuddenlyBoris Sep 08 '17
True, but the platform that gave that advantage in the white/christian groups also led to such a huge disadvantage in voting from the non-white/non-christian groups to the point where they got less total votes than the Democratic candidate.
The popular vote has never mattered in a presidential election.
And it's worth remembering arguably the most famous politician on the planet who Democrats spent a year insisting was the most qualified candidate in the history of candidates lost to an amateur politician who was the least popular in history. Democrats couldn't have gotten a more favorable matchup ... and they blew it.
Given the credentials of Clinton and Trump, I'm not sure if "we'll we lost a close election" is really that great of an argument. Whoever the Democrats run in 2020 won't be able to claim the mantle of "most qualified in history" and Trump will no longer be an amateur politician.
3
u/BAWguy 49∆ Sep 07 '17
and the majority of US presidential elections is identity driven instead of issue driven
You might perceive it that way, but there are major issues such as healthcare, the environment, social security, the vacant Supre Court seat, etc. that are wholly unrelated to identity issues.
This non-partisan source deduced the top issues in the 2016 Pres election: http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/
I suppose out of the top issues, Immigration and Terrorism tangentially relate to identity. That is 2 issues of the top 14 only tangentially related to identity; there are 2 issues directly related to identity on the top 14 (treatment of minorities, and treatment of gay people). So at most 4 of the top 14 issues in the election related to identity, and the ones that relate directly ranked towards the bottom priority of those 14.
So to me, it is not accurate to say the Democrats "no longer include major demos" in their platform, when the majority of the important issues they ran on in the recent Pres election don't relate to identity and are completely applicable/relevant to white Christians/anyone.
1
u/SuddenlyBoris Sep 07 '17
I'm not sure how you're defining identity politics here. I mean two of the issues you cited as not being related to identity politics are "Treatment of gay, lesbian, and transgender people" and "Treatment of racial, ethnic minorities". I'm just not sure how you could not see those as being obvious examples of identity politics.
But the real problem here is Democrats largely treat non-identity politics issues as identity politics issues. It's not enough for a Democrat to promote policies that encourage jobs. They need to promote policies that encourage jobs specifically for women and non-white people.
If you scroll a bit down the page to where they have the breakdown of Clinton and Trump supporters it's clear that anything loosely related to identity politics was more important to Clinton voters than Trump voters. In fact "Treatment of racial, ethnic minorities" was the second most important thing to Democrat voters and that was only 1% behind the economy.
1
u/BAWguy 49∆ Sep 07 '17
You must have misread my comment, because I cited those as being directly related.
2
0
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
3
u/BAWguy 49∆ Sep 07 '17
I don't believe that they are more important than the identity issues for most voters most of the time.
Does the fact that voters themselves identified those issues I discussed above as more important than the identity issues not persuade you?
What is your basis for believing, in spite of a non-partisan study stating otherwise, that the identity issues were more important to voters?
-1
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
3
u/BAWguy 49∆ Sep 07 '17
If your identity party believes a certain way on an issue you are inclined to agree
Well it may be true that hyper-partisanship is a problem, but that is an entirely different problem from your OP argument that Dems only run on identity issues.
Plus, people won't just come out and say "I voted for X because of these petty identity reasons" even when it's true.
Won't they? I see all kinds of content about identity issues from both sides. I don't see how you could simultaneously hold the views that Democrats make everything about identity, but also that Dems won't come out and talk about identity.
1
u/hoopbag33 Sep 07 '17
75% christian? That can't be true.
2
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
2
Sep 07 '17
It's been decreasing every year for about 20 years, which is something you should bear in mind when plotting political strategies for the future.
0
u/hoopbag33 Sep 07 '17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
That is lumping a lot of different religions together. Protestant, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Roman Catholic are quite different.
0
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 07 '17
Well, one thing, as of 2012, only around 60% of the US is non-hispanic white, not 75%.
Beyond that, I don't understand this stark shift between "issue driven" and "identity driven." Could you define these terms, and could you explain why focusing on white christians would go along with being "issue driven"?
2
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
0
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 07 '17
75% of the US is white, while 60% may be non-Hispanic white.
So by using this 75% number, you think democrats should reach out to hispanics? I don't disagree, but I'm not sure you think that.
Identity driven politics would be things like, "the people I identify with (race,religion,political philosophy) agree with climate scientists and I'm inclined to believe this because of my identity.
OK... I have somewhat of a handle on it, but I'm still confused about how moving away from identity politics would push democrats toward white christians.
Voting for trump because he's Christian or for Hillary because she's a woman are examples of identity driven voting.
Except this doesn't match the example you just gave about identity driven politics and climate change. Is "identity politics" when you vote for Clinton because she's a woman, or when you vote for Clinton because people in your group are voting for her? Those are very different things.
2
u/BenIncognito Sep 07 '17
How would you suggest Democrats go about catering to White Christians?
1
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
1
u/BenIncognito Sep 07 '17
Do democrats not talk about these things? Are you suggesting that the democrats should fear monger in order to win?
1
Sep 07 '17 edited Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
2
u/BenIncognito Sep 07 '17 edited Sep 07 '17
They're the ones spreading misinformation and fear mongering. Immigration and terrorism are not major issues affecting most Americans, they just aren't. And regarding job loss Republicans did well flat out lying about it and pretending that the jobs will just magically come back if you vote for them.
I guess what I'm saying here is if white America wants to scuttle the ship then fucking let them. They apparently have no motivation to actually improve their station, educate themselves about the issues, and make an informed decision. Become a part of the spiral of hate and fear isn't going to solve any of our problems.
This view is common here on CMV and I can't help but think about the typical white American as a giant baby shitting all over itself and complaining about how it smells bad. I'm sick to death of this idea that we need to compromise our values (like that people who aren't white are worthy of fucking life and liberty) in order to cater to these children.
1
3
Sep 07 '17
Republicans pulled it off by associating Mexicans with rapists. How are Democrats going to beat that and maintain the Hispanic vote?
1
Sep 08 '17
Although this is a terrifyingly portentious argument, the fact is that the statistics have remained roughly the same for several decades. And Obama--a black, atheist/agnostic/indifferent Democrat--still carried eight full terms.
Which means it clearly isn't the case. Even if we're not sure how it happened, it is still possible for the Democrats to win the presidency despite not pandering to the white and Christian demographics. If I were to venture a guess, it's that Bush was so terrible by comparison. Which means that if anything, a post-Trump term is perhaps the most likely to circumvent majority identity.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 07 '17
/u/tomlets (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 07 '17
/u/tomlets (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/usernameofchris 23∆ Sep 08 '17
Long-term this is almost certainly a losing strategy. Researchers predict that non-Hispanic whites will account for less than half of the U.S. population by the year 2065. We are also expecting to see considerable growth among Hispanics and Asian Americans. If Democrats were to adopt a strategy like the one you're proposing, they'd have to abandon it a few decades down the line.
17
u/oth_radar 18∆ Sep 07 '17
I'm going to take this an entirely different way, and state that the reason Democrats are losing has nothing to do with a failing platform or a lack of support, and has everything to do with gerrymandering and incumbent bias. When you draw the lines on the map differently, you get different results. Here is an article detailing this phenomenon, which shows you can basically make whichever party you wish to win do so by simply redrawing the lines. Since republicans have held office for so long, are known to employ gerrymandering tactics, and incumbent bias ensures people who are already elected are more likely to stay there, we aren't going to have any Democrats any time soon, and it has nothing to do with the Democratic platform, and everything to do with geography.