Non-White Democrats

[_Themis]

.... If they are democrats they must be voting for democrats.

no, they "must" not necessarily voting for democrats. Voting out of party happens, ya know? (see also question in opening post)

Sure some of them can, but then why call them democrats if they don't normally vote for democratic candidates? So why do they differ in their voting habits from how normal religious white republicans vote?

[_honorentheos]

The 2012 election autopsy by the Republican party came to similar conclusions, believing that if the party demonstrated more inclusiveness towards Hispanics and African Americans that it could attract them over to support them based on social conservative causes. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were being set up as the future of the party because of their Hispanic-friendly biographies.

So to answer your question, subbie, no. Not in 2018. Certainly not in male v. male Senate and House races to overcome the odd problem minority males seemed to have voting for an older white woman in 2016. Maybe in 2020 if the party turns its back on Trump and does something about immigration reform that appeals to the immigrants and minorities here in the country now. Democrats shouldn't get comfortable on this issue, anyway.

[_subgenius]

Sure some of them can, but then why call them democrats if they don't normally vote for democratic candidates? So why do they differ in their voting habits from how normal religious white republicans vote?

Oh, i see..you are preferring a post mortem discussion when clearly the OP was headed in the opposite direction.

Well then, the answer to your question(s) here is simple - one, the insertion of "normally" is not presumed; and two, "conditioning".

[_subgenius]

The 2012 election autopsy by the Republican party came to similar conclusions, believing that if the party demonstrated more inclusiveness towards Hispanics and African Americans that it could attract them over to support them based on social conservative causes. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were being set up as the future of the party because of their Hispanic-friendly biographies.

So to answer your question, subbie, no. Not in 2018. Certainly not in male v. male Senate and House races to overcome the odd problem minority males seemed to have voting for an older white woman in 2016. Maybe in 2020 if the party turns its back on Trump and does something about immigration reform that appeals to the immigrants and minorities here in the country now. Democrats shouldn't get comfortable on this issue, anyway.

Odd how you seem to denigrate the voter into some sort of oversimplified lever puller. How can you not accept that Hillary Clinton likely did not get the minority vote because of her policies and positions? Do you have some sort of reputable/reliable data to support your claim that minority males were adverse to an "older white woman"?

[_honorentheos]

Odd how you seem to denigrate the voter into some sort of oversimplified lever puller. How can you not accept that Hillary Clinton likely did not get the minority vote because of her policies and positions? Do you have some sort of reputable/reliable data to support your claim that minority males were adverse to an "older white woman"?

Odd how you take a legitimate and informed response to your OP and ignore the content to attempt a rhetorical argument. As to the questions, it was an established contention of the political Right that Clinton and Obama represented very similar "policies and positions". One of the calls to arms in 2016 was built on the argument a Clinton Presidency would effectively be four more years of the Obama Presidency. Yet we can look at voting behaviors for those who voted for Obama but failed to turn out for Clinton. Turns out males in general, and minority males especially, were more likely to vote for Obama but not Clinton. I've posted the data on the board enough times, I'm sure you've seen it.

[_subgenius]

Turns out males in general, and minority males especially, were more likely to vote for Obama but not Clinton.

this does not conclude with it being "old white woman" as the reason minority male voters did not populate the booth for Hillary Clinton. You are relying on coincidence. For example, the "minority" vote turnout decreased from 2008 to 2012...and that was the same "young non-white man".

Either way, you have no data that supports your claim of "cuz she old white lady". More reasonable to conclude that after 8 years they saw the failure of the young not-white feller and did not want "more of the same".

[_Themis]

Well then, the answer to your question(s) here is simple - one, the insertion of "normally" is not presumed; and two, "conditioning".

If it is not normal then they cannot really be called democrats. Conditioning? LOL Honor beat you to answer my question, but we both know you never intended to have honest discussion.

[_honorentheos]

Hi subbie -

More reasonable to conclude that after 8 years they saw the failure of the young not-white feller and did not want "more of the same".

Amusing, given...

Either way, you have no data that supports your claim.

But feel free to dismiss affinity bias as a thing because you feel like it. It's not as if you and reality are on speaking terms elsewhere, either.

[_subgenius]

Hi subbie -

More reasonable to conclude that after 8 years they saw the failure of the young not-white feller and did not want "more of the same".

Amusing, given...

Either way, you have no data that supports your claim.

But feel free to dismiss affinity bias as a thing because you feel like it. It's not as if you and reality are on speaking terms elsewhere, either.

Point being, you can wildly speculate and ergo so can I...amusing indeed.

[_honorentheos]

The point being until republicans can find a way to be inclusive the relatively higher religious affinity of non-whites will be difficult to leverage in an election. It is highly unlikely in 2018. Trump makes it practically impossible.