So will the real men get up?

03/30/10

So will the real men get up?

The retired editor emeritus of The Washington Times, Wesley Pruden writes in "Shunning the party of whiners":

We're not yet a nation wholly of whiners, but some of our congresspersons are working on it. Democrats who should have been taking a victory lap spent a week cowering in fear of the contents of a tea cup. No wonder real men — mostly but, by no means all, white — are shunning the Democrats.

The polling gurus are finding that millions of the white men who helped put Barack Obama in the White House are leaving the Democrats in great numbers, and this could lead to really bad news in November. Gallup finds that white male support for a Democratic Congress has fallen 8 percentage points since last summer, while the support of women has remained remarkably steady. White women who voted for Mr. Obama continue to support him, but only 38 percent of white men support him now. Unless the president and his party find a way to reverse this trend they must prepare for an epic bath nine months hence.

This may seem kind of innocuous at first, but keep in mind Pruden is a repeat offender when it comes to race.

Pruden is letting us know that real men are "mostly" white, and black and Latino voters don't matter as much. White men are where the action is! Doom and gloom are on the horizon if you don't get white men to vote for you! Unless of course, you know what you're talking about . . .

• 9 comments ». Categories: Politics.

Permalink • Send a trackback » 09:31:27 am by Ragamuffin

Trackback address for this post

Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)

9 comments

Comment from: grygus [Member]

Wait. Someone wins a popularity contest in a country that's over 80% white, and your Big News is that white people voted for them? Wow. That's the kind of insight we need from our journalists. Also, I like being told how I feel about politics based on my skin color - oh no wait, that is fucking racist. This guy's an idiot. I'm not clicking any links.

03/30/10 @ 11:47

Comment from: Ragamuffin [Member] · http://keephip.com

You have to agree that there is correlation between race and political stances.

03/30/10 @ 12:10

Comment from: grygus [Member]

I don't agree with that statement. I have to agree that there is a correlation between socioeconomic status and political stances. Poor people will be more likely to be liberal, rich people more likely to be conservative. That's common sense, since they are experiencing the world from a common viewpoint. The fact that race /seems/ to map to liberalism/democrats is a result of overrepresentation of blacks among the American poor.

It's environmental, not racial.

03/30/10 @ 15:34

Comment from: Ragamuffin [Member] · http://keephip.com

Poor people will be more likely to be liberal

Not true in the South for whites.

03/31/10 @ 09:02

Comment from: grygus [Member]

Assuming that is true, what's your point? I did say "more likely." That does not preclude the existence of exceptions or even a group of exceptions. Technically it only requires a simple majority, though I intentionally inferred a greater proportion than that. Unless you have information that most poor white people live in the south I don't see how this is relevant.

03/31/10 @ 11:35

Comment from: ibotobob [Visitor]

Without checking the population statistice, it looks like the larger the percentage of blacks, the less likely whites are to vote for Obama.

03/31/10 @ 16:43

Comment from: grygus [Member]

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

Obama got Virginia and North Carolina, two states with a relatively high concentration of black people, but lost Utah, Iowa, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming, six states which have very few black residents.

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't see it.

03/31/10 @ 18:28

Comment from: ibotobob [Visitor]

I'm not saying that he's losing statest with few blacks, I'm saying that he doesn't win whites in states with many blacks. Except for North Carolina and Virginia, this matches the map you linked to (thanks): Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina appear to have the largest groups of blacks, and he got the fewest white votes there.

04/01/10 @ 03:01

Comment from: grygus [Member]

I'm not questioning that correlation, I'm just pointing out that it's not very strong. Clearly, having a lot of black people wasn't necessary to lose him white votes, nor was it a guarantee.

It may or may not be a pattern. We'd need another election to see.

04/01/10 @ 08:33

Comment feed for this post