Letters to the Editor
-
@ Greg in FL
I agree. The article says that Democrats shouldn't change or even shade their positions in an effort to woo the votes of white southern males. but, absolutely nothing should prevent the democratic candidate from directly saying to them that their economic and national security interests are identical with those of the Democratic Party.
Look at Guiliani. He is campaigning for those NASCAR dads, admitting that he is pro-choice and that he has a laughable reputation on personal issues; the only candidate who competes on that issue is Newt Gingrich. The southerner is perfectly capable of deciding about priorities. If the guy thinks that macho rambo is the solution to the national security issues, and that is the priority, then the guy votes for Rudy and abortion has to wait.
If the guy thinks that economic issues are at the top of the list, democratic candidates can compete for the vote, and abortion has to wait. If abortion is the top issue, democrats aren't competitive, but they weren't going to get that vote anyway.
No appeal to interest groups defined by characteristics. Assume everyone can figure out their interests and run as yourself. The days of image consulting are over.
-
Buh Bye, White Boy
you will be replaced by the nanny state.
-
There it is guys!
Well, here's your confirmation folks. If you are a while male guy, you are thought of as a hick, as a stupid person, as a person who is illiterate and can't possibly know what's going on in the world.
So if you are a white male voter, you are not wanted by the Democratic Party. They do NOT want you! You do NOT matter to them anymore!
So, white male voters have a couple of choices: 1) you can vote for Democrats and be ignored and worse insulted by your leaders, 2) you can sit out the vote and HOPE you'll have a leader who is interested in what you have to say OR 3) You can vote Republican and have a leader who is definitely interested in what you have to say.
If you are a white male voter, these are your choices!
-
Racism ("just to be cool") in any form shouldn't be tolerated
"So long, white boy"?
What is this!!??
It's okay to be racist so long as the group in question is white, or what!?
What if your article was "So long, black boy" or "So long, brown (or yellow) boy"? Would that title be any more racist because the group in question isn't white?
By the way, what's this with the "Bubba" tripe? How insulting is that! It's just as insulting to call somebody "Bubba" as it is to call somebody else "Sambo" or somebody else a "Beaner." If you strive to get rid of your racism or ethnocentrism, get rid of it for everybody, not just a few select groups.
What was otherwise a fairly decent article about voting demographics was completely soured by the writer's juvenile need to present himself as "cool" by putting down a group he doesn't appear to approve of.
Salon's editors need to rethink their publication standards. They should have told this guy to re-write the article and leave out the childish need to denigrate.
-
votes - black and white
Uh... Isn't the fact that the democrats - who get approximately 90% of the black vote - need to sway a certain number of white male voters in order to win elections? They have the black vote essentially sewn up. Therefore it stands to reason that they MUST get some white male votes to win any elections... Of course, there is also the danger that they'll mess around and lose the hispanic vote - didn't Bush get approximately 40% of that vote in 2000?
-
Took the words right off my keyboard
This cannot be repeated loudly or frequently enough:
The article says that Democrats shouldn't change or even shade their positions in an effort to woo the votes of white southern males. but, absolutely nothing should prevent the democratic candidate from directly saying to them that their economic and national security interests are identical with those of the Democratic Party.
Look at Guiliani. He is campaigning for those NASCAR dads, admitting that he is pro-choice and that he has a laughable reputation on personal issues; the only candidate who competes on that issue is Newt Gingrich. The southerner is perfectly capable of deciding about priorities. If the guy thinks that macho rambo is the solution to the national security issues, and that is the priority, then the guy votes for Rudy and abortion has to wait.
If the guy thinks that economic issues are at the top of the list, democratic candidates can compete for the vote, and abortion has to wait. If abortion is the top issue, democrats aren't competitive, but they weren't going to get that vote anyway.
No appeal to interest groups defined by characteristics. Assume everyone can figure out their interests and run as yourself. The days of image consulting are over.
-- masaccio
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:44 AM
Precisely, Ditto and Amen.
Southern white males make up the bulk of those republicans who wouldn't vote for a Democrat under threat of waterboarding.
Trying to draw such authoritarians into the Democratic tent is a time-consuming, expensive way to bring the whole damn thing down on all our heads.
-
The "Beer Buddy" Hogwash
I find it pretty offensive to find that I'm pigeonholed as not white enough or male enough to be a "white male" because I'm not a blue-collar NASCAR fan from the south. And I bet the guys who fall into this pigeonhole find the definition pretty annoying too.
Appealing to the guys in this demographic who are not already voting Democrat is pretty simple: Show them the ugly results of voting purely on the "Have a beer with him" nonsense. Of course that's probably the main reason Bush doesn't want to bring the troops home, because they're the people who are going to bring the unpleasant news directly to the guys who voted for Bush.
In fact, given the results of the "beer buddy" bullshit, I think it can be argued that the Republicans aren't going to run a candidate like that either. "Bush Lite" is not going to sell, which is I think why we don't see anyone like that out.
About the only "beer buddy" candidate with any credibility in either party would be Bill Clinton, who of course can't run for office, but he can of course stump for Hilary, which I think we can guarantee he will do at the appropriate juncture. Meaning, after Hilary's won the democratic primary.