Democrats and Diversity: Every vote matters (yes, even white male votes)

One of the most insidious memes running through this primary has been one that "white votes" don't matter, or more specifically white male votes, or that they matter less than others, according to supporters of the Hillary campaign. A companion meme is that progressive votes don't matter.

There are many reasons why this "votes don't matter" thesis is flawed. I'm going to present some facts that demonstrate, whatever one's reasons or desires, the notion that "white votes don't matter or aren't as important" is empirically false. Then I'm going to present an argument why the meme is dangerous for any coalition on the American left to internalize.

I'll be using exit poll data from the 2012 Presidential elections. I'll be making an assumption: that these data are a reasonable proxy for all down-ticket partisan contests. I think it's reasonable to assume that a person who voted for Obama would likely vote Democratic down-ticket, in contests for which he or she cast a vote. I'm using the CNN 2012 Exit Poll Page as my source.

A Breakdown of the Democratic Vote

Here's a breakdown of the data found at the CNN exit poll site:

  Demographic    % Democratic Voters
  White Men         11.9
  White Women       16.0
    All Whites               27.9
  Black Men          4.3
  Black Women        7.7
    All Blacks               12.0
  Latino Men         3.3
  Latino Women       4.6
    All Latinos              7.9
  All Others         3.3

  Liberal           21.5
  Moderate          23.0
  Conservative       6.0

How to obtain these numbers is a matter of simple arithmetic. For a given demographic, take the product of the democratic percentage with the electorate percentage (e.g. "white men" were 34% of the electorate and 35% of them voted for Obama, for a value of 11.9%, meaning 11.9% of the electorate were white men who voted for Obama).

Something stands out immediately: white men comprised as much of the democratic vote as all black votes combined. The electorate hasn't changed that much since 2012. Incidentally liberal voters account for almost as much of the vote as "moderates". The contention that democrats can win without the white male vote or without the progressive vote is simply false. Full stop. In fact, the same is true for each of these demographics. We all matter.

Coalitions win or lose by their cohesion

More important than petty fights over which demographic is "more important" is that Obama, with record turnout among AAs, won by just 2%. That means if just 2% of the Democratic coalition sit out (or, worse, if just 1% defect and vote R), the Democrats lose. Period.

We can't afford as a coalition to discount the importance of any voting constituency. This isn't to say that we should support Democratic Party candidates. Quite the opposite: partisan Democrats beating the drum of exclusion under the false pretense of being less racist or not racist are going to harm their candidates' chances this fall should their desired candidates win nominating contests.

So when Hillary supporters suggest Sanders supporters aren't necessary for victory, they're assaulting a part of the coalition. It's not just the "white male" part, either. It's the ideological left. It's a destructive meme, and it will harm Hillary in the general election if she's the nominee.

This is a calculated campaign strategy she is employing that implements the worst sort of identity politics. This isn't her campaign nobly championing minorities. It's a cynical exploitation of racial divides that exist everywhere in this society and has no place in a liberal party. It is the realm of Republicans to employ this kind of cynical exploitation of racial tension. Likewise regarding a cynical exploitation of ideological divisions.

By the way, in the interest of fairness there are some Sanders supporters who have poo-pooed the importance of the votes of southern black folks. The difference is, these supporters aren't public, prominent "liberal" blog owners or the campaign itself. On the other hand the Hillary campaign and her allies in the media have made a concerted effort to smear Bernie as a "white males only " candidate while implicitly discounting their importance in the general election. And her loudest supporters are employing the language of conservativism (e.g. anti-tax rhetoric) to discount the importance of liberal votes. It's disgusting and dishonest.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

you end up losing most of the governorships, state houses, and most of Congress.
The problem is that many people on GOS are immune to logic and even the math you present above.

up
0 users have voted.

Identity politics will tend to keep the status quo. It is divisive, whereas class based politics is inclusive and has a much better chance of achieving equality of income and wealth. Sanders casts a larger net - the 99% - and his emphasis on changing the rigged global economic system is resonating with many people either new to politics or turned off by the generations of DLC and rightwing politics.

up
0 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

featheredsprite's picture

White males have been sort of left out of the conversation but no slight was intended. Perhaps we've been guilty of criminal negligence. Sorry.

up
0 users have voted.

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Under the Electoral College system we use for presidential elections, all voters are not equal. The national popular vote doesn't matter at all (as Al Gore could tell you). We hold 51 separate presidential elections, in each state and the District of Columbia (voters in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories don't get to vote for president).

Red state and blue state voters have very little impact on the outcome. In battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia the votes of major-party loyalists count a lot but the votes of independents count most of all. Independents typically vote for the candidate, not the party - a great candidate like Bernie gets more independent votes. Hillary's margin of support in the Dem nomination race comes entirely from red state voters who won't have an impact on the general election.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

For the Presidency, sure, and admittedly the assumption implicit in the above is that a 1% "defection" rate or a 2% "non participation" rate would likely translate to losses in swing states.

But down-ballot races are at least as important if not more so, and in those cases such swings could be even more devastating.

So my point is that we can't afford, as a coalition, to take the vote of any constituency within it for granted or, worse, to actively exclude any of it.

up
0 users have voted.