How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

I subscribe to The Atlantic, and will be sure to read it. Thank you!

 

Maybe you should start another thread about divided American: those who can read The Atlantic and those who cannot.

 

Why do you assume it is whites which are the reason for the low educational attainment and its Democrats who blacks vote for already. Maybe they should switch in an effort to get better results.

 

Amazing
'Very simple. College in America has become a detriment to more than 50% of those that attend. It turns them in to drug addled, left wing lunatics."

 

It appears that education has an opposite effect on Blacks than what is being implied it has on Whites.

 

Yakety yakety yak. Long on description and short on explanation. As I've pointed out repeatedly whenever this subject comes up for discussion, there are three things going on here that get little to no attention in these articles. 1) The wealthy of today aren't the wealthy of yesterday. The Forbes 400 turns over in its entirety every 30 years or so. On the current list, only something like 28% of the wealthiest people inherited their wealth. All the rest earned their wealth. 2) Limitations on economic mobility are created entirely by liberal Democrat policies. The same thing was going on all during the 1970s with the liberal Republicans Nixon and Ford and the far left Democrat Carter. All the same people who were rich in 1970 were still the rich in 1980. When Reagan came in and eased taxes and regulations, the economy boomed and economic turnover accelerated into high gear. None of the richest people in the country in 1990 were the same people from 1980. 3) IQ and luck account for the greatest percentage of success in life, not parental wealth. A study on the children of middle class and higher parents found that a simple difference of 10 IQ points could create a difference in average salary of $30K a year. The children of high SES parents with IQ's below 90 still couldn't make it through college, despite their parents' wealth. A simulation of the economy with lucky and unlucky events demonstrated that luck played a significant role in who became rich and who didn't, with talent being a necessary but not sufficient condition of getting rich. Nicholas Taleb in Fooled by Randomness suggests that all successful people are just lucky and that we shouldn't even consider the differences in wealth as any indication of merit, intelligence, or talent. I wouldn't go that far, but considering the number of morons and no-talent hacks with a lot of money, there's something to be said for the theory.

 

I wouldnt say the education is bad, I would say bad education is bad.
Being educated doesnt make you intelligent. You either are or you arent. Ive seen highly educated people make incredibly stupid mistakes. In some instances an education can work against malleable minds who cant think for themselves. Lefties know this that why they target them during the education process. Ive seen lefties walk into laboratories....for a lab job that they applied for......expecting not to set foot in the actual lab, expecting to get their own office, and demanding to not work with any chemicals. Even with the brainwashing this person obviously received ...its dumb on a scale I didnt think was possible. This person will never survive in any work environment thanks to her learned attitude that her education makes her above the job she applied for. That was a lefty at some point in her upbringing that instilled that in her and its going to cripple her for life. Being an educated chemist for example wont help you if no one hires you.

 

I'm sure this ^^nonsense ^^ is a Natty original. Immigration trends, including the massive influx of illegal immigrants is dictating US demographics ... democracy couldn't be further removed from the equation. Todays immigrants ... "refugees" aren't fleeing democracies, they're fleeing the totalitarian sh-itholes that they and their oppressive countrymen created. US immigration laws are democratically enacted by congress. "Sanctuaries" and the Dems that establish, and advocate them haven't any more respect for democracy than the illegals they shelter. Tyranny and lawlessness dictates demographics Natty.

 

Educational attainment is good for Americans and America.

There are some who fancy, "If you obtain an education that makes you think differently from me, you got a "bad" education.

If the acquisition of knowledge and analytical skills results in a perspective that differs from that of the less-educated and it is reflected in voting patterns, that should surprise no one. It is simply one more contributory demographic.

Individuals, of course, vary.

As noted, the demographic disparity in the 2016 presidential election was stark. Whilst the best-educated states - Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, etc. - voted, overwhelmingly, for the Democratic candidate, the least-educated supported Trump in impressive percentages:

Least-Educated States

1. Alabama 62.1%
2. Arkansas 60.6%
3. Louisiana 58.1%
4. West Virginia 68.5%
5. Mississippi 57.9%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karste...cated-states-in-the-u-s-in-2018/#71499e6051e1
​

It is undeniable that the base of the Democratic Party was once blue-collar Whites. Despite the declining percentage of that sector in the US, it is in the interest of the Party to better address their interests.

​

 

The utter hatred and bigotry they face from the democrat party likely has a lot to do with it.

I'd say disconnect the ultra left fascistic Social justice crap from democrats.

 

America's greatness was founded on immigration, and, despite the perennial revilement of nativists*, those seeking opportunities for a better life for themselves and their families have been welcomed here - those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores.

*The Know-Nothing Party that strongly opposed immigrants and followers of the Catholic Church was a prominent US political party during the late 1840s and the early 1850s.
​

Yes, there are communities of Americans who speak truth to power, and refuse to have their local law enforcement resources federalized to savage their hard-working, law-abiding neighbours. None desires to harbour criminals.

Perhaps, that thoroughly American quality is best encapsulated in the overwhelming support for DACA.

​

 

And I had to rewrite your revision. ..and I did it at 9!

 

You mean those who fight for the poor and for civil rights are the bigots? That’s quite a bigoted conclusion

 

"When reason becomes the enemy of the common man, the common man becomes the enemy of reason."

"Unreasonable people also tend to be ungovernable. "

Taken from the Atlantic article that you linked they seem to be appropriate in this context.

 

They aren't fighting for civil rights They want to because they want to be like generations before but they are simply fabricating oppressed groups or oppression to LARP as civil rights fighters.

Not when you realize the clowns "fighting" imaginary foes are not really fighting and their foes are fabricated.

 

Yup!

With whites it was the RESENTMENT factor that dictated which way they voted. It was way higher amongst the less educated. Ironically enough they resented not having enough white privilege as the educated elite of which their BLOTUS was one who did.

 

"Utter hatred and bigotry" is your hyperbolic, hyper-partisan confection, of course. Less-educated White Americans were simply convinced that their needs and aspirations were no longer being adequately addressed by the Democratic Party (a trend that pre-dated the rise of Trumpery), and I share their opinion in that regard.

The establishment GOP, pandering to the more affluent even more that Democrats, were vanquished by Trump's effective rhetoric.

 

If you just want to deny criticisms that are truly critical why start this thread?

No there is nothing wrong keep doing exactly what your doing.

It's clear you live on mars and are completely out of touch.

 

The thread concerns how the Democratic Party can win back its alienated, less-educated White voters.

Hysterical bombast by hyper-partisans is not a viable method.

 

I explained you don't like the explanation drop the stupid sjw crap disassociate with it and I imagine you win back a good bit of the Middle America types.

But I get it you don't want to accept that that is the problem so keep doing what you're doing there's nothing wrong.

which is why I say ditch the sjw crap. Or don't listen to anyone and think you have it all figured out I don't know why you post here if you don't want to hear other people's opinions.

Seems kind of stupid.

 

Gee so working age minorities translates into blacks and hispanics. And by the way if you graph unemployment numbers for both of those minorities the line is almost straight starting with Obama and continuing through the current Trump years. Trump has done nothing to change the jobs trajectory. About all you can claim for Trump is he hasn't screwed it up.

And by the way China and India which are much poorer countries than the US have much faster GDP growth.

 

Well why don't you give us a brief synopsis of it's premise and conclusions reached?

 

There is nothing like a white guy saying minorities are fighting imaginary foes. ...all the silly rationales and all.

 

What I haven't seen so far was the choice of candidates addressed. CNN in 2008 and 2012 didn't break education down by race. But they show Obama winning the HS degree or less both in 2008 and 2012 while Trump won them in 2016. Obama won those with a college degree in 2008, Romney won them in 2012 and Clinton in 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/results/president/exit-polls.html

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Why the attraction to Obama by HS degree or less and not Hillary Clinton? Charisma maybe? Obama had it, Trump also, but not Hillary, Romney or McCain. Those last three just weren't exciting. Winning back those without a HS degree or less, regardless of race, probably the Democrats need a better candidate. One that excites, has charisma, not a dour old elitist of a woman. Whether she was more qualified or not means little to nothing if Hillary couldn't attract their votes. I would say McCain having served his country both in the military and had been a senator for a very long time, had much more experience and better qualified than a senator who was in the senate for only four years.

But Obama could install excitement, enthusiasm in the young, less educated, McCain could not. Neither could Romney or Hillary Clinton. I really don't think hand wringing is necessary, it boils down to that old adage, candidates matter.

 

What exactly does that high falutin' nonsense actually mean?

You mean Trump's "its too hard" china trade policy? Wanting to trash congressional sanctions against a Chinese company guilty of trading with NK and Iran?

I realize it has certain emotional connection with your political perspective but you appear to be full of such outrageous anecdotally based generalizations. Makes one's perspective rather superficial in the grand scheme of things.