White Male Vote Especially Critical
| AR Articles on Elections |
|---|
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002) |
| Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002) |
| It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001) |
| Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999) |
| We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000) |
| Search AmRen.com for Elections |
| More news stories on Elections |
In the fierce campaign between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, a battle dominated by questions of race and gender, white men have emerged as perhaps the single critical swing constituency.
The competition for the support of white men, particularly those defined as working class, will shape the showdown between Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania‘s Democratic presidential primary on April 22. Obama (Ill.) won majorities among those voters in what appeared to be breakthrough victories in Wisconsin and Virginia last month. But he badly lost working-class white men to Clinton (N.Y.) in Ohio and Texas two weeks ago, keeping the outcome of the Democratic race in doubt indefinitely.
The results in Ohio in particular raised questions about whether Obama can attract support from this crucial demographic. They also brought to the forefront the question of whether racial prejudice would be a barrier to his candidacy in some of the major industrial battlegrounds in the general election if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
An examination of exit polls in Wisconsin and Ohio, states with striking similarities, shows that many more working-class white men in Ohio said race was a factor in their vote on March 4 than was the case in Wisconsin. The analysis makes clear that race was not the deciding factor in the Ohio primary but did contribute to Clinton’s margin of victory.
{snip}
David Axelrod, senior adviser to Obama, said he is uncertain how concerned the campaign should be about the influence of race on working-class white voters. “It bears some closer examination,” he said. “I think for older voters, it’s more of a leap than for younger voters. But I don’t think it’s an insuperable barrier.”
Obama has sought to transcend race in his campaign, and found considerable success in that pursuit in many states. Racial divisions have shown up in Southern states, as they did last Tuesday in Mississippi and earlier in Alabama. In both primaries, Obama overwhelmingly carried the black vote and Clinton overwhelmingly carried the white vote. But in smaller states outside the South—such as Iowa, Kansas and Utah—where there are far fewer minorities, Obama has done extremely well with white voters.
One view in Obama’s campaign is that his poor showing in Ohio primarily reflected that the state has a high number of older voters. An analysis of exit polls in the two states undercuts that assertion. There were roughly similar percentages of white working-class men over 45 and under 45 in both states. It is accurate that Obama did far better with younger men in both states, but he won younger and older white men in Wisconsin but lost both groups in Ohio.
One difference between the two states is the influence of race on voting patterns. Among white men in Wisconsin, 11 percent said race was an important factor in their vote. In Ohio, 27 percent of white men said race was an important factor. That is not enough to explain the entire difference in the voting patterns of white men in the two states, but more than enough to explain at least part of Obama’s problem.
{snip}
Securing the votes of white men has become a critical factor in the Democratic race. Throughout the primary season, Clinton has dominated the votes of white women, but she and Obama have battled for support from white men.
In 27 states where exit polls were conducted, starting with Iowa on Jan. 3 and ending with Mississippi last week, Clinton won the white male vote 11 times and Obama 10 times. In five states, they basically split the votes of white men. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) carried white men in South Carolina.
Obama has generally won decisively among white men with college degrees; Clinton has consistently done far better with those who did not graduate from college. Obama broke that pattern in mid-February in Virginia and Wisconsin. He barely lost among white men without college degrees in Virginia and won them in Wisconsin by 60 percent to 38 percent.
{snip}
(Posted on March 17, 2008)
Comments
Isn’t that strange that the people who created the country over 300 years ago have lost control over who rules it? The liberal laws allowing anyone, no matter how illiterate, to vote was clearly a mistake.
Posted by D. Andrews at 5:44 PM on March 17
“Racial divisions have shown up in Southern states, as they did last Tuesday in Mississippi and earlier in Alabama. In both primaries, Obama overwhelmingly carried the black vote and Clinton overwhelmingly carried the white vote. But in smaller states outside the South—such as Iowa, Kansas and Utah—where there are far fewer minorities, Obama has done extremely well with white voters.”
Where there are far fewer minorities……? In other words, it is exactly as Jared Taylor has said. Whites who have an up close and daily exposure to blacks or other minorities - learn really fast that they do not want to live anywhere where these folks are in control of them or in control of their communities.
Whites who do not live close to many blacks or other minorities - and whose entire opinion about them is shaped by the intentionally false images portrayed on Television and in Hollywood movies, which tend to show them as though they are just ordinary white people with different paint jobs - take those false impressions with them to the voting booth.
Media control is the issue, fellow AR readers. An honest media would not deliberately attempt to deceive their viewers, and I’m old enough to remember a time when it was reasonably truthful about such matters. Not any more.
Today, we need to view the media as the enemy of our people - because today, the lies they spew are getting our young daughters raped and killed, and sometimes, even eaten by dangerous predators who they were told that they need not fear or avoid.
Today, our media is brainwashing our young white sons to act black, dress black, and to wish they were black - as evidenced by recent sightings I have personally had of young white males with their hair done up in corn rows.
Posted by Luke at 7:11 PM on March 17
Its very simple, Wisconsin doesn’t have as many Blacks as Ohio and therefore the Whites there have less experience with Black behavior.
Posted by Ronduck at 7:20 PM on March 17
“One difference between the two states is the influence of race on voting patterns. Among white men in Wisconsin, 11 percent said race was an important factor in their vote. In Ohio, 27 percent of white men said race was an important factor. That is not enough to explain the entire difference in the voting patterns of white men in the two states, but more than enough to explain at least part of Obama’s problem.”
Here’s a shock, but people lie in exit polls. A lot. Exit polls showed John Kerry winning Ohio by about 2-3% in the 2004 election. And voting for Bush isn’t even a very sensitive issue in the mainstream. The fact that 27% of White men said that race was a factor should be an indicator that around 75% of White men really think it is, but were scared of repercussions. I personally find that 27% encouraging. We’re not as far gone as I’d thought.
What people in the MSM also do not realize is something we here have known for ages. The more you are exposed to minorities, the more you dislike and distrust them. Why else did Obama do well in Wisconsin and Utah? All they know of black people is what they are spoon fed on television and pop culture outlets. Those of us who deal with it on a regular basis know better, and we vote that way.
Posted by Teutonicus at 7:42 PM on March 17
“The results in Ohio in particular raised questions about whether Obama can attract support from this crucial demographic. They also brought to the forefront the question of whether racial prejudice would be a barrier to his candidacy in some of the major industrial battlegrounds in the general election if he becomes the Democratic nominee.”
Have they ever thought to run a correlation between these later “prejudiced” states, and the more “enlightened” earlier ones, before it was coming to light that Comrade Obama is a secret hater of white men?
Oops, I mean his “pastor”?
Or, oops again, I mean his wife?
The Obama campaign of “dreams” has benefited from an orchestrated and simpering open conspiracy by the media and business elites, to have a coroneted multiracial prince.
A multiracial prince, that would be the multicultural king?
Too bad the pope and the princess this pretender follows, both let out too much bad an odor to be fully ignored, too soon?
The media’s bucket of chicken, has come home to sleuth in CYA mode?
Perhaps, perhaps?
Posted by John PM at 8:16 PM on March 17
This white man realized a long time ago that the Democratic party is a party against any man who has white skin. Those white men still voting Democratic are either ignorant of this or suffering from a masochistic need to be purged.
Posted by Whiteplight at 8:26 PM on March 17
White men who actually want Hilary or Obama as President have forfeit either their Whiteness or their maleness. I want BHO myself, but only to accelerate the onset of political and economic chaos, certainly not because I wish him well.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 8:43 PM on March 17
The issues, such as health care, are avoided here. I would like to see the white male vote broken down by age, something the article conspicuously avoids also. I think age is a bigger factor here than income. But if it is true, white men are more likely to vote for Hillary - because they are poor, it does show one thing. Poor people really are less intelligent.
Posted by I should have taken the blue pill. . . at 9:29 PM on March 17
Regardless of who ultimately wins this election, we still lose. Clinton, Obama, McCain, doesn’t matter. The two-party system is nothing more than a smokescreen to give the illusion that we still live in a democracy.
Posted by Cop at 9:29 PM on March 17
I’m not so sure a white man should vote for either one,… I say we usher in Patrick Buchanan, Let the Arabs work out their own destiny,obviously with safegaurds, and then we could work out ours. We could mine our own oil while our scientists find an alternate fuel and deal with our domestic problems,racial balance, immigration,dismantle hate speach laws,quotas,race based nonsense and other bad ideas that interfere with the natural freedoms of association as per the constitution.
Posted by Petrarch at 10:44 PM on March 17
You can count on me Democrats—NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS.
Posted by Bobby at 12:01 AM on March 18
But in smaller states outside the South—such as Iowa, Kansas and Utah—where there are far fewer minorities, Obama has done extremely well with white voters.
The naiveness of Whites still living in all White areas.
Posted by PincheGabacho at 12:05 AM on March 18
Something I first noticed during the election of David Dinkins for mayor of NYC - 85 to 95 percent of black voters vote for the black candidate, and no one comments or bemoans this fact. That blacks vote overwhelmingly for the black candidate is as natural as sunshine, and that blacks might be prejudiced - against white candidates - is never, ever mentioned.
When white voters “only” vote 40, 50, 60 percent for the black candidate, it brings up anguished commentary in the media, as shown in this article. We hear and read much talk about racial prejudice and barriers , all this proving that whites are racist and prejudiced.
Posted by MikeNY at 12:27 AM on March 18
Balz: “The results in Ohio [he badly lost working-class white men] in particular raised questions about whether Obama can attract support from this crucial demographic. They also brought to the forefront the question of whether racial prejudice would be a barrier to his candidacy…”
Notice that the slippery Balz has no problem with the preferences of black American voters or of white American women voters. He only raises the issue of bigotry and prejudice when white American men voters are discussed. Balz just couldn’t wait to sneak into his text smearing references to white American men. Just part of his job at the Washington Post. His email: balzd@washpost.com
===========
Balz: “Obama has sought to transcend race in his campaign, and found considerable success in that pursuit in many states.”
And for a second helping of bigotry, Balz tells us the Big Lie that Obama has sought to transcend race in his campaign. Does he think that we are so stupid as to have forgotten that Obama played the race card right away with the code phrase “acting white”? He pretended it was about what some black students say hurtfully to some studious black students, but everyone knows any similar statement (“acting black,” anyone?) would be seized on and deconstructed the way Ferraro got deconstructed!
Obama has played race card after race card, often carefully coded, throughout the campaign beginning with “acting white,” a way to smother the variety of all the diverse white American peoples as clones of each other and to slap us around just to see if we would notice. Some of us did.
Posted by Don at 12:44 AM on March 18
I’m tired of being called racist because I won’t vote for the annoited ones and the inference of this article is that anyone without a college degree is a stupid racist just because I look at his background as say Jesus what makes him qualified to be President? What’s he going to do for me? What’s he going to do against me? These questions seem to be reasonable to me but it’s horribly racist in the eyes of the MSM. Why?
Posted by pat at 1:02 AM on March 18
I may well have to hold my nose as I vote for McCain but I cannot imagine any white , male or female, voting for Obama or Hillary . They both belong to the party that has worked overtime for the last 60 some odd years to undo whites in general and the white male specifically , where ever they may live .Same with the middle/working class , despite the Dems orchestrations on how they represent this group the proof that they do simply is not in the pudding .And for turning it into a regional thing , I suspect many white Southerners would flock to vote for Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or even Condy as opposed to Hillary. As for these 80 to 95% white midwestern states , just what happens to the caucasian mind when it is so well insulated from reality ? We have the same phenomena in the blackbelt in 90% white enclave counties , you bump into one and the first thing out of their mouths is ,”I am not prejudiced .” And I am like , well you ought to be , because your competition certainly is .
Posted by at 2:21 AM on March 18
If the choice of voting Democratic means choosing Lying Hillary OR Phony Obama, I’ll vote Republican — Thank You! Or better, yet, for ANY third-party candidate who talks and ACTS reasonably rational.
Posted by Fed Up at 11:32 AM on March 18
With the exception of Alan Alda types why would any white male vote for either one of the hate white males Dem candidates?
Why would a white male, other than a homosexual or a committed leftist, vote for his own destruction? I don’t get it.
Posted by ricpic at 7:18 PM on March 18
“Why would a white male, other than a homosexual or a committed leftist, vote for his own destruction? I don’t get it.”
I make that comment myself. . kind of. . I know I often use the phrase ‘Dem-o-fags’ however, this line of reasoning doesn’t seem so appealing now that it is either Obama or Hillary… and I find myself asking of your post… Is the implication here that a non-white, or a non-male president would spell doom for white men, in and of itself? Or is the implication that Hillary and Obama, with their leftist platform, would spell doom for white men? I don’t get which.
Hillary and Obama, as far as their policies are concerned, would be no worse than another democratic president, better than John Edwards, actually, and frankly, it looks like, one way or another, a democrat is going to be the next president.
Posted by LHathaway at 11:51 PM on March 18
The pattern is clear. Obama does well in states where either the black population is so high that bloc voting by them is enough to carry the state (South Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi, etc.) OR the black population is so low that the whites there are ignorant of the nature of blacks (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, etc.) In states like Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, there are enough blacks for the local whites to understand their nature, BUT not enough blacks to carry the state.
Posted by Mike at 2:17 AM on March 19