In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a solid advantage in partisan identification. By 2010, that advantage had largely evaporated. As I detailed in a previous post, in every state, the Democratic partisan ID advantage has declined, and by an average of nine percentage points.
But the decline has not been equal across the nation. In fact, there is a good deal of variation in the change in Democratic identification across states, ranging from a ranging from a drop of 22.2 percent in New Hampshire (from +13.2% to -9.0%) to a drop of just 1.6 percent in Mississippi (see this table for state-by-state numbers).
Why should these changes vary so much from state to state? Are there demographics that might explain this?
As it turns out, the only statistically significant predictor of the decline in democratic partisan affiliation advantage is the percentage of white people in the state. Surprisingly, the state economy (at least as measured by unemployment rate or change in unemployment rate) doesn’t seem to matter.
Unemployment
Let’s begin with the unemployment rate, since a good deal of the analysis around the 2010 election was an “it’s the economy stupid” story: voters blamed Democrats for high unemployment, and voted Republican to express their anger and frustration.
Yet, what’s remarkable about this scatterplot (above) is that the story doesn’t hold up. If anything, the relationship seems to be slightly opposite what the conventional wisdom would lead us to expect: the Democrats appear to have lost more support in states that have relatively lower unemployment rates. However, it is not statistically significant.
Still, it’s possible that what matters is not the absolute unemployment rate, but rather the change. Yet, once again, the scatterplot (below) shows that this is not the case. The more unemployment dropped between November 2008 and November 2010, the less the average decline in Dems’ partisan ID advantage. Though the relationship is actually stronger than above, it is still not a statistically significant one.
These numbers just don’t fit with the story of voters turning against Democrats for a failing economy. Take Nevada: Unemployment jumped from 8.0 percent to 14.3 percent, yet Democrats partisan ID declined by only; Similarly, California: Unemployment goes up from 8.4 percent to 12.4 percent.
On the other side, consider New Hampshire: Unemployment goes up from 4.3 percent to 5.4 percent (both among the lowest in the nation), but Democrats lose 22.2 percentage points in partisan ID advantage; Or South Dakota: Enemployment up from just 3.4 percent to just 4.5 percent, but the Dem partisan ID advantage falls up 10.4 percent.
Manufacturing
Another possibility is that what matters is the economic make-up of the economy, and in particular, perhaps states that rely disproportionately on manufacturing are more likely to have a lot of anxious voters, since manufacturing is a dying industry. But if we plot the decline in Democratic partisan ID and the manufacturing as share of the state GDP, there is no relationship.
Seniors
Another possibility is that Democrats are losing out in states with more seniors, since senior citizens are reportedly turning against Democrats. A scatter-plot shows a clear relationship, though not quite a statistically significant one (but close!). Generally, the more seniors in a state, the more Democrats have lost in their partisan ID advantage. However, the number of seniors explains only three percent of the variation in the Democratic vote share decline.
Whites
Finally, we come to the share of white voters. Here we have a consistent pattern, and one that is statistically significant (and explains 13 percent of the state-level variation). For every ten percent increase in white voters as a share of the electorate, the predicted decline in Democratic ID advantage is almost one full percentage point (the one outlier in the lower left is Hawaii, which is highly Asian. Without that outlier, the relationship would be even stronger).
This re-emphasizes the problems that Democrats seem to be having with white voters. (Democrats have not enjoyed parity with Republicans among white voters in 20 years, but 2010 was especially bad, with white voters breaking 62-to-38 for Republicans in the mid-term elections.)
This explains why the Democratic decline in diverse states like California (47 percent white) and Nevada (66 percent white) is less than in lily-white states like South Dakota (90 percent white) and New Hampshire (95 percent white), even though California and Nevada have much higher levels of unemployment.
These results exist regardless of economic circumstances (these findings are robust even in a statistical model that controls for all the other possible factors discussed).
Conclusions
The brief summary of this analysis is that race may matter more than the economy for why voters have been identifying more and more as Republicans for the last two years.
Of course, there are obvious caveats to this interpretation, most significantly the fact that I am playing around with state-level data, as opposed to individual-level data.
But the patterns are discouraging for Obama and the Democrats. Much prognostication has argued that the number one factor for 2012 will be the unemployment rate, because historically, the unemployment rate has been a very strong predictor of whether the incumbent party wins or not. This analysis suggests that something else is going on as well. Democrats are having a hard time with seniors and particularly white voters, and it’s not just a story about the state of the economy. Democrats ignore these scatterplots at their peril.
Update: I’ve written a response to some of the comments entitled “Am I a Race-Baiter?”
Tags: Democrats, Economy, Obama, unemployment rate, voting trends
I disagree completely. Obama won election by winning the Independent vote, a significant portion of which was the so-called Reagan Democrats; a group that’s overwhelmingly white. Obama won because he got all of the Centrists who lean towards the Dems and he won enough of the Centrist Repubs who were disgusted with 8 years of Bush/Neocons and an economy that utterly collapsed.
Obama then governed as an ideological Leftist after having promised to govern as a Centrist. To make matters worse, he outsourced his leadership to Pelosi who leapfrogged willy nilly into far Left legislation, while using/proposing tactics (e.g. reconciliation, deem & pass, etc.) that stunk of power grab and trickery.
So what happened? Obama has lost the Independent vote, which as I explained above is overwhelmingly white. I know the author of this article is attempting…once again….to convince us that opposition to Obama is motived by race, but I ain’t buying it.
“Democrats ignore these scatterplots at their peril” doesn’t even make sense. Obama’s race hasn’t changed since 2008. If he loses in 2012 it won’t be because of race, and you know it. For every diehard progressive you might “fire up” to fight against racism, you will only “fire up” two more independents and conservatives who are SICK AND TIRED of progressives calling them racists. It was a losing strategy in 2010, but why take a hint. Go with the scatterplot strategy. It can’t fail!
I predict that all non-race-obsessed and all semi-patriotic Democrats will leave Obama.
His “base” is made up of those who need government help and angry “minorities” who hate “white” culture but want the goodies.
Just some facts.
“Whites” have figured out that the O does not like them. Guess it was something he said or did.
All non white Dems who dont’ actively hate Western Civ. (a small number) are giving up as the true horror of the One becomes visible.
Hate Churchill, play golf, cover Jesus name, insult “clingers”, lie, lie, lie, have Eric Attack Dog Holder innapropriately, shockingly and dangerously preach at “whitey”, have private conversations with Farrakhan, etc. Where are the college records just by the way……….
This author seems to think that “groups” of “demographics” can be manipulated. There may just be enough individuals out there who are able to think for themselves and cannot be manipulated as if they were statistics.
People also may have noticed that the LINEAR concept of “progress” does not work and in fact leads to tyranny such as that of the “Brave New World”.
REAL “Liberals” are independent, live and let live people who appreciate the luxury of having a strong Constitutional Republic and unique Biblical-inspired laws that make this the most free and most truly “progressive” country in the world.
Obama is not a real Liberal in the classic sense.
He’s also not realisitc and race obsessed and a hell of a bad planner. I could go on……
In short, you cannot FIX human nature by setting up endless rules and procedures.
If you ignore a “higher power” you risk a man made and man centered global tyranny in the name of progress.
We need decentralized government, and smaller communities, not more Federal power.
Wasting my time here……
So if the decline in white democrats suggests race is an issue than does the fact that the whites voted in a black man suggest race as an issue also?
You really can’t have it both ways, can you? Perhaps the white voters who changed from dem to repub just got sick of the spending and borrowing, is that possible??
Great analysis. No doubt race plays a role in party ID. But, I bet party ID shifts track the state of the economy.
No p values, or R values. So, you may be right, but if you are going to quote statistics then back it up with methods, and statistically significant metrics that show you know what you are talking about.
That is unless you’re a climatologist, then it doesn’t matter.
[...] comments var addthis_product = 'wpp-254'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};From ProgressiveFix In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a solid advantage in partisan identification. By 2010, that advantage [...]
[...] http://www.progressivefix.com/why-dems-are-doing-worse-in-some-states-than-others-it%E2%80%99s-race-... Posted by Craig B. on Mar 16, 2011 in Uncategorized | 0 comments Formerly Tiny Chunks of Empire I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts…and beer. — A. Lincoln [...]
This just shows that blacks will vote for Obama even if he was a proven ax murder. Who are the racists here?
democrats suck balls.
Shouldn’t you really be comparing midterm to midterm (2010 vs 2006) instead of midterm to presidential election (2010 vs 2008)? We know that midterms bring out larger percentages of Republican leaning voters – in other words your voters of 2008 are not the same group of people as your voters of 2010.
With white Presidents, blacks overwhelmingly vote as a bloc. (Not that having the Democratic Party as their monopoly political provider seems to have done them a whole lot of good collectively.) Does a black President encourage whites to vote more as a bloc? Or is skin colour a proxy for something else?
Can’t believe even published this “STUDY” what explains the other 83% of the change? This explains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! I’m white but my vote in November had nothing to do with race. It was policy and nothing more. DESPERATE!!!!
Excellent. You know, I was totally worried no one would bring this up (you know, in a kinda scientific way). Thank God! (Sorry – using that quaint expression is an old habit). But, here we have it. Solid facts! Whites are racist! Always have been ever since the Democratic Party ran the Old South. Now when Barack, The One, loses in 2012 it won’t be because of all his deficiencies but because whitey done it. Only FOOLS would think otherwise. It’s really been racism all the time. Whites have the Dems to thank for the fact they haven’t been called to account for this sinister motivation before. Dems should have been screaming ths charge at every turn! But, now we know. It’s in the open. Whites are racist!! And, anyone who won’t vote for Barack is a …. YES! Racist! Racist! Racist!
Yet another incident of failure of the intellectual left in the US. Barack Obama was elected by white voters as well as non-white in 2008; rather than look at what changed to disgruntle these voters (INCLUDING ME!) they play the race card. How about:
Promised to end Guantanamo – nope, didn’t happen
Promised to end Iraq and stop throwing money down a hole there (how many billions since January 2008?) – still there
Promised to govern from the Center – instead he ran left as soon as he hit office
Promised to be bi-partisan – ok, not really his fault with slash-and-burn victory at any costs party-before-country Republicans, but still he didn’t really even try.
Silence on Union-busting in the Mid-west, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Japan, the economy – this is leadership?
The only really good things he’s done is not defending DOMA, repeal of DADT, and pushing through health care reform; otherwise he’s been a damp squib. And health care looks like it’s gonna be rolled back in 2012 anyways if the Dems don’t pull their act together and win back some seats in the House, or at the very least the House will keep on trying and tie up lots of resources year after year trying to repeal it.
Whilst I can’t stomach voting for any Republican candidates who look likely to run at this point, a viable real centrist alternative to Obama I would heartily embrace. Hell, Mitt Romney looks more centrist than Obama.
I was going to leave a post…but Freebird and Cesplin nailed it..nothing left to say. EXCELLENT ACCURATE POSTS.
This post is likely true- back in 2006 and 2008 when Republicans were struggling and Democrats were doing well it was because Democrats were all racists and hated black people, but now that the Republicans are polling well and Democrats are not, it is because all Republicans hate black people.
Every day I think God that it was the Democratic Party that fought the Civil War, that it was the Democratic Party that fought against Jim Crow in the Republican South, and that it was the Democratic Party that passed through Congress the Civil Rights Acts. Thank you Democrats for your historic and recent fights to fight racism!
Opps, I made a typo- switch the word Republican with Democrat and vice-versa, use same logic- that should still make sense.
I’m guessing, and it would be an excellent guess, that “progressives” like Mr. Drutman here have given up on trying to convince the American people about how great their policies are. The race-baiting on display by Mr. Drutman shows the void of his intellect and his morality since he is deliberately unwilling to find the real reasons Democrats are failing everywhere.
What’s really sad is someone is actually willing to pay those like Drutman to write such disgusting, race-baiting drivel like this.
Keep playing the race card. Please do.
It’ll drive more and more of the very Independents Obama needs to win, as far away from him as they can get.
We Independents believe that a political party that can not BUDGET, can not GOVERN.
And we all know who couldn’t, and still can’t, BUDGET.
Got nuttin to do with skin color.
I agree with Chris. Without statistical measures, these purported relationships are meanignless. Simply looking at the plots, the relationships, if any, are very weak. Most of the dots are far from the lines.
[...] [1 new] var addthis_product = 'wpp-254'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};From ProgressiveFix In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a solid advantage in partisan identification. By 2010, that advantage [...]
This “analysis” is silly, no doubt aimed at “proving” Drutman’s preferred explanation.
The shift in partisan advantage over a relatively short period, two years, has occurred for the same reason such shifts always occurs: independent voters in large numbers have turned away from Democrats and are identifying more with the GOP.
Now, independent voters are mostly white. This is not due to some peculiarity found only among whited. It is due to the fact that Blacks are overwhelmingly (90 percent or more) Democrats and staunchly loyal to the Democrats, cone what may. Latinos are somewhat less likely to be Democrats than are Blacks, but lately, they have been running around two thirds Democratic.
So, it follows that where white people make up a larger proportion of a statewide electorate — whether in New Hampshire, West Virginia or Washington — there is also a larger cohort of independent voters and, thus, a bigger shift away from the Dems since 2008 .
Really, Drutman, this is elementary stuff. If you drew a graph of the shift away from the GOP and to the Democrats between 2004 and 2008, you would see that white people were increasingly identifying as Democrats! But the reality of the shift would be the same, independents swinging, as they are wont to do, not some sort of race issue.
No where does the author say that white people are racist against Obama. It’s about Democratic Party identification.
I’ve never heard a bunch of white people whine so much.
I look forward to Lee Drutman’s article on the racism that drives black voters’ support for “Obama.”
The issue isn’t that whites are increasingly opposed to the Democratic Party on racial grounds; it’s what kept them so long? The Democratic Party has waged war on them since 1964. And if the Dems do not believe in turning the other cheek, why should Christian whites? But why did so many whites (43%) vote for a man who is an adherent of genocidal, racial supremacist, Black Liberation Theology?
There are two answers: 1. Whites have been so beaten down by almost 50 years of institutionalized, anti-white racism, and media and educational propaganda that many routinely vote against their own interests; and 2. The media lied and covered for “Obama,” from 2004, when they anointed him, through the 2008 election campaign. But once he started governing, it was impossible any longer to hide his racial hatred.
Re “Whites are racist!” It is a math theorem, the Wright Island Model that immigration causes complete genetic replacement. Men’s median wages are the same as 1973, women’s the same as men’s were in 1963.
Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century, high before immigration restriction, and high after it. Fertility is an inverse U shape over the same period. This is just what the math theorem says. This proves that anti-Whites are the racists.
It IS about Race. It always will be about Race. Whites, who are extremely individualistic as a Race, have been programmed to believe, for decades now, that “We are all alike underneath”. Which is an absolute lie.
(Caucasians are the only ethny that care about individualism. Distinct identity. This has worked fine, through the centuries, since White lives in White socieities. This is absolute disadvantage, now that White Nations have been compromised, invaded, and attacked by hostile Non-Whites. ALL other Races exist as collectives. The Tribe. Whites have fogotten to live as group – and ar now in the beginning stages of a VERY painful lesson – which they may not survive. White global population rates have plummeted)
American Whites bought that lie hook linme and sinker, because this fraud appeals to natural White curiosity, and fairness. Apparently – Whites, who are suffering under the economic collapse, are just beginning to understand that no-Whites do NOT care about them, and in fact HATE them, yet want all that Whites create. Most Whites have no clue about any of this, and beleive what the TV, modern Avatar, tells them about how wonderful “multi-culturalism” is – and have no direct experience of the real-world horrors of same.
For any of you reading these words – you’d better stop lying to yourselves ASAP. If you want to know what happens, in the REAL WORLD, when Blacks (and not Mestizos) are permitted to take over White civilizations – you have a 100% consisten pattern to study – Haiti, South Africa, Rhodesia (These were ALL White founded Nations, folks. Learn the facts!) and Detroit.
Get right with reality.Research “Farm Murders in SA”. The fate of the Boers is YOUR fate.
Sorry about the typos. And thanks for posting my post. I wrote the above very quickly. FYI – the one error I wish to correct is “NOW Mestizos”. The Mestizo invasion is just as destructive. Anyone that disagrees – please translate the name for the American tax-payer funded group “La Raza” into English. Thanks.
Lee you are worried about something that will be taken care of in just a few years.
I’ve been studying this topic for some years now and let me tell you WE HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT! Howard Dean knew this some 3 years ago:
“The fact is that the Democratic party is made up of lots of different people, and we’re all minorities in our party. That’s the way it’s been for a long, long time. We’re the party of opportunity. So the demographic trends favor the Democrats.
If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the [laughs] Republican Party.”
National Public Radio on Friday, August 15, 2008
Dr Dean was RIGHT ON in his analysis.
This is why DREAM ACT and immigration reform as well as removing limits on H1-B and similar visas as well as at least a TRIPLING of the immigration quotas under a reform bill are vital. However even if we lose on those particular issues, but don’t forget Republicans will be with us on the work visas, most of the children in the US are NON-WHITE, so no matter what they do they are going to be irrelevant.
Never again will we have to fear a Nazi-Aryan party taking power, they will be gone.
WE ARE THE FUTURE!
Relax have a pickle!
Why should race replacement be so vital? For one political party to triumph over another? Political parties are not the end point of life, life is. And they openly say erase our life with H-1b. They accept the math theorem is true, Wright Island Model, and agree they know it and are practicing it to cause complete genetic replacement of Whites. This means not a mixture of genes but all White gene lineages terminate. That is the math.
That is what they say openly is the goal of H-1b, Dream Act, etc. to take our jobs, to keep wages down, to make people over 50 who lose their job never have a job again, to end Medicare because it is too expensive to pay for Medicare for the 3rd world poor. Even here, they say openly that H-1b, Dream Act, legal immigration, student visas are intentionally to achieve this goal of lineage genocide of Whites.
Alvin – “you are the future”? Doesn’t look like them ost fabulous place….we have a solid 200 year, proven consistent history of what happens when Blacks take over. Haiti, South Africa, Rhodesia..Detroit.
Yup. Really bright future there.
The Chinese will rule. You ought to learn about how the Chinese regard Blacks.
Whites are being exterminate so a Very, Very Exclusive Ethnic Group, that must NEVER be Named, can rule over their global Slave Planet.
FYI – Blacks – they’ve been given access to White Nations. They’ve been given EVERY sort of privilege. They’ve been given every sort of educational and employment opportunity available – including access to technology. And here is the latest result.
What a wonderful future lies ahead! (This is a “woman” FYI. As far as I can tell, it’s complaining about “American Imperialism”)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9reO2Kisrg&feature=player_embedded
How despicable for commenter “Alvin” to call for the destruction of the white majority in America through mass immigration because he thinks all whites are Nazis.
The mass immigration of tens of millions of unassimilable and frankly hostile 3rd world aliens triggered by the 1965 immigration act has been devastating to the US. It is a policy based on anti-white hatred, as demonstrated by “Alvin.”
Mass immigration needs to end now if America is to survive at all.
People who identify as “progressive” are so laughable.
More good news on the “Diversity” front”
http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wkef_vid_6103.shtml
Negroes! Lowering standards everywhere! (Psssst…operators of this blog…working class Whites have had to deal with the effects of tou insane “liberal” BS for decades. They experienced the Fun ‘n Games on the front lines. YOU’VE insulted them and trashed them and slandered them and now you wonder why they are leaving you in droves. Now – with lotsa Negro cops, you’ll gt a taste of your own medicine. Speaking OF medicine – I hope you Brilliant Geniuses are awar of MLK “hospital”. Brought to you by the Civil Wrongs Era. Enjoy your old age! Remember – there’s nowhere left to go!)
Thripshaw – Alvin is a very low-IQ, yet wonderfully confident “Minority”. Please remember, that once Whitey is gone – all he’ll have left is his own kind.
I have only one thing to say. People of all races had better wake up to the fact that blacks can’t run anything without ruining it. Obama is only half black and not really running anything (who could, with his extremely low IQ and testosterone level) but even as a mere symbol he fits the pattern perfectly. Only God knows whether Democrats will ever wake up to racial reality — it will be enough of a shock if Repubs ever do — but if a critical mass of individuals don’t, this country is toast and all of Western civilization along with it. Diversity kills, socialism destroys!
This analysis is spot on. I think the ultimate test is a simple thought experiment: What have the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter, on the national level done for average whites, whether left or right? What has either party done for the middle or working classes? I can think of a lot more
I think we need to distinguish between having a welfare state and progressive social policies, and poisonous Political Correctness. It’s one thing to favor welfare policies when a relatively small number of people are receiving benefits. But we can’t afford to provide welfare benefits for an unlimited number of people. There are limits. But PC demands our borders be left unguarded and that we take in eighty to a hundred thousand legal immigrants a month when one in five US workers is unemployed or underemployed. Most of them will either take a job from an American or be a burden to taxpayers.
It is also the case that the more diverse a society becomes, the more we withdraw from it; we simply don’t feel the same level of civic obligation. Sociologist Robert Putnam has written extensively on this phenomenon. Just as we are more likely to stop and help a stranded motorist we are familiar with than one we are not, we are more likely to support welfare state programs in a society we are all familiar with. But PC has made it into some kind of moral failing to want to preserve our own ways of life. Why?
It is also the case that immigrants, and nonwhites in general, are far less likely to support socially liberal policies, such as homosexual rights, women’s rights, separation of religion and state, etc. California’s recent ballot initiative on homosexual marriage failed because blacks and Hispanics opposed it in large numbers. Is the left willing to sacrifice progressive social policies in the interests of diversity? That’s exactly what will happen.
Average whites object much more strenuously to PC than they do to progressive policies.
The one thing Obama said during his campaign that I agreed with was that he would get us out of Bush’s wars. He’s been in office for over two years and his war policy is now almost indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. Before Obama’s election I saw plenty of progressives protesting the forever wars. But now that Obama is in office Cindy Sheehan (God bless her) is usually protesting alone. This shows to me that the “progressives” really didn’t much care about the war (after all, none of their college educated liberal friends were coming home in body bags) but simply used it as a vehicle to get their progressive into office. (In the 2008 primaries I voted for Ron Paul, who really *would* have got us out of the wars. But Ron Paul doesn’t believe that the purpose of government is to take stuff from some people and give it to others, so progressives didn’t vote for him.) Of course on the war issue most Republicans are as bad as Obama, so we’re screwed no matter which main stream media approved candidate we vote for.
What about other issues? We have unemployment over 10% (probably over 15%) yet both parties insist that we must keep importing over 1 million legal immigrants per year and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants per year. When Obama said to an Indian engineer, “You are the future!” it didn’t take much reading between the lines to understand that he was saying that white guys like me are the past. Most of the jobs created in the past two years have gone to immigrants. Both parties favor an immigration policy that increases economic inequality and is bad for the environment. But the Democrats are the worst, as they are the biggest backers of illegal immigration. Obama is keen to have an amnesty for illegal immigrants. I won’t vote for the Illegal Immigrant Party.
Bush gave us $500 billion deficits, Obama gives us $2 trillion dollar deficits. We went from horrible to inconceivably bad. Obama has proven to be as eager to bail out bankers as Bush was. This should have surprised no one, given that the biggest contributor to the Obama campaign was Goldman Sachs. To be fair, most Republicans will talk up a storm about favoring balanced budgets but will never vote to actually cut anything. But the only one in congress to actually propose significant cuts was Republican senator Rand Paul ($500 billion). Most Republicans will only cut token amounts but Democrats won’t cut the budget at all.
And no, I don’t want the federal government making it illegal for me not to buy the health insurance it approves of. There *is* a health care crisis in this country, but it’s caused by the ever escalating cost of health care, and Obamacare does nothing to address that problem. (It does, however, mandate racial quotas for doctors. I don’t want my surgeon to be an affirmative action hire.)
I’ve always felt that the Democrats are lucky that their only competition is the Republicans, and the Republicans are lucky that their only competition is the Democrats. It is true that most of the Republicans suck, but that doesn’t mean that the Democrats are any better. If there was a party that represented the interests of middle class Americans it would win by a landslide, but there is no such party.
BTW, “Alvin” shows precisely why no white person in his right mind would vote for Democrats. But it is too bad that the only alternative in this “democracy” is the Republican Party.
Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record.[2]
http://www.cbpp.org/
When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That’s a decline of 4.2 per cent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/
What recession? The millionaire population jumped in the U.S. by 8% [in 2010], fueled by the stock market recovery, according to an industry report on Wednesday.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-millionaires-population-cnnm-649773567.html?x=0
By the early 1970s it was apparent that ending racial discrimination would not achieve racial equality. Rather than accept the dichotomy between equality and freedom the Democrats used Republican disarray over the Watergate Scandal to force through policies like forced school busing and affirmative action. These were not required by the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960s. They were never popular. They negatively impacted the white blue collar workers, who had been a demographic essential to Democratic electoral victories.
Unfortunately for the Democrats Watergate was not a U turn in America’s move to the right; it was a temporary detour. The millions of Americans who had voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 and who thought he should resign in 1974 did not wish that they had voted for George McGovern earlier. They wished that they had had the opportunity to vote for a conservative Republican without Richard Nixon’s penchant for self destruction.
In 1980 they had that opportunity with Ronald Reagan. He won. The move to the right continued.
Unfortunately, the white working class has not benefited economically from its support for the GOP. Although the economy has continued to grow since 1980 nearly all the growth has whistled past the white working class to the upper middle class and beyond.
The Democrats should address the growing income gap. They will not be able to do so until white blue collar workers trust them on racial issues. There is little support nationally for a return to discrimination against blacks. Affirmative action discriminates against white male blue collar workers.
[...] Originally Posted by WolfsCompass The Anti-White Libs are trying the same with the AZ law. Its obvious that any legislation that is not geared to helping non-whites get ahead (while holding whites back) will be subjected to activist judges. Thanks for the heads up, Blue. Why Dems Are Doing Worse in Some States than Others: It [...]
[...] Drutman explained Why Dems are doing worse in some states than others (it’s race) and then responded to comments that he was a [...]
It would be nice if you would edit out the responses that don’t serve to move the conversation forward. I would be nice to have a discussion without the name calling.