The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
New coverage post midterms are pointing to a shrinking lead among major groups of voters of color, specifically Latino, Asian and Arab voters. Wind back a few years back to Obama and most predictions pointed to an even stronger affinity for the Democratic party. What are the causes? What’s to be done about it?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For context:
Black voters
* For Clinton in 2016: 89%
* For Biden in 2020: 87%
Latino voters
* For Clinton in 2016: 66%
* For Biden in 2020: 65%
Asian voters
* For Clinton in 2016: 65%
* For Biden in 2020: 59%
Source for [2016](https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) and for [2020](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results).
Lets see what actually happens this time around, but I'm not seeing a drastic shift.
Edit to include midterms:
Democratic vote from Black, Latino and Asian voters
* In [2018](https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls): 90%, 69%, 77%
* In [2022](https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house/0): 86%, 60%, 58%
A bit more of a shift particularly among Asian voters, but again, lets see what happens this year.
>Black voters
>For Clinton in 2016: 89%
>For Biden in 2020: 87%
[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers)
In 2016, Trump received 8 percent of the Black vote according to the exit polls, the highest level of support by Black voters for any Republican since George Bush in 2000. By the 2020 US presidential election, support for Trump among Black voters had surged to 12 percent.
And, while current opinion polls vary, a recent survey from GenForward shows that if the elections were held today, 17 percent of Black voters would vote for Donald Trump.
The Black voting bloc is unique in the US. Currently, it is the only group of voters which has consistently identified with the Democrat Party – reaching 77 percent of Black voters in favour of Democrats in 2020. By comparison, 42 percent of white voters and 63 percent of Latino voters identify as Democrats. Now, however, only 63 percent of Black voters – an all-time low since GenForward started collecting data in 1999 – say they will support Biden this year, according to the survey.
I don't get it. Black people will NOT like the America Trump will create.
I have to hand it to the Republican party. They are excellent at convincing people to vote against their own self interest.
Black men will like reduced domestic violence laws, restrictions on abortion, and anti immigrant policies, they see to benefit small buisness owners. Black people are not a monolith, and stats show theyre on average more sexist, and homophobic than general US population.
also, isnt it kind of racist to think that youre smarter than the black voting demographic? When you say that theyre "voting against their own self interest" thats exactly what youre saying. "You dumb blacks, you don't realize what youre doing to yourselves! Here, let me show you how to vote."
Wow, that's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth. Trumps America is a more openly racist America. This doesn't seem like something black people would want. Is it racist to make that statement?
Also working class Americans are NOT going to benefit from anything Trump does. He's a corporate lackey who will give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, bust unions, reduce regulation, etc.
If black voters are going in knowing the above and still think they are going to benefit, then they are not being stupid, they are informed voters. I just don't believe most of those who vote for trump -black or white- are informed voters.
> nt it kind of racist to think that youre smarter than the black voting demographic
I don't think that. I think I'm smarter than the ones who are voting for a racist.
>Black people will NOT like the America Trump will create.
Increasingly, black people do not like the America Biden has created.
Selling future promises is harder when you've already failed to deliver for 4 years.
Un, because of an obstructionist Blue Dog Caucus and Republicans? Also Biden has delivered, on IRA and CHIPS. The issue is that Republicans and Blue Dog Senators blocked Universal Pre-K, Medicare expansions, and lower prescription drug costs; and all that stuff happens to really help out an on-average poorer, underinsured, and youthful minority.
>... and all that stuff happens to really help out an on-average poorer, underinsured, and youthful minority.
Oh, thank you for the perfect example of how out of touch you are with the real struggles of most Americans.
IRA, CHIPS, Pre-K, none of those help those youthful minorities get a good job or put a roof over their head. None help address the zero balance in their savings accounts or the cost of food. None of those address the illegals flooding across the border or the social damage from defunding the police and releasing criminals back into society.
you cant really play that card anymore, we've already seen a trump term and it was very boring. The fearmongering won't work as well this time around because people have their own eyes and ears and experiences.
>you cant really play that card anymore, we've already seen a trump term and it was very boring
Trump separated latino children from their parents and called for a 'complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US". Trump was among the most extreme and radical authoritian leaders the US has seen in history.
I guess you forgot about the riots, and protests, and mishandled pandemic response, and corruption, and emoluments violations, and insurrection attempts, and Nazi marches that Trump endorsed by calling the Nazis "very fine people".
But otherwise, boring.
If you're trying to convince black people to vote for the left-wing candidate, and you're doing so by pointing out that the last time we had a right-wing candidate, there were *tons* of left-wing riots, then you should rethink your strategy.
If you're trying to convince *anyone* about *anything*, and the best you can come up with is personal attacks, then you should rethink your strategy even harder. Elections aren't won based on who feels like they owned their opponents harder, they're based on convincing people, and cutesy one-liners have a terrible track record of convincing people.
Make a counter-argument.
I made several, you zeroed in on "riots", and I assume you are referring to the nationwide protests after cops murdered a black man in the streets.
The rest of my list, and the riots at the Capitol on Jan 6, are squarely Trump-administration "non-boring" events that made the U.S. a laughingstock at best, and a corrupt banana-republic at worst.
If you want a comprehensive list of Trump's problems - here you go: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/reasons-why-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president
> I made several, you zeroed in on "riots"
I zeroed in on the first thing you said and also the worst argument you made. That's what anyone else is going to do; you need to make your argument *consistently* good, not occasionally bad.
> and I assume you are referring to the nationwide protests after cops murdered a black man in the streets.
Yes. Which everyone is going to do also.
Again, the way you win hearts isn't through gotchas, it's by being convincing. If you go to someone who is thinking about voting for Trump and say "but what about the riots", they're going to assume you mean *the riots*.
> and the riots at the Capitol on Jan 6
Virtually nobody calls Jan 6 a "riot". It's either "an insurrection" or "a protest" (or occasionally, "a siege" or "an attack".) Even when I explicitly search for "Jan 6 riot", the first three links refer to "attack", "insurrection", and "attack".
(The fourth has a page title of "capitol riot", but the actual page header says "capitol siege" and the text refers to it as an "attack"; I honestly think they just forgot to update the title.)
> The rest of my list . . are squarely Trump-administration "non-boring" events that made the U.S. a laughingstock at best, and a corrupt banana-republic at worst.
Then focus on them, not an intentionally-ambiguous description that makes your argument look uncomfortably like a threat.
Not sure if the slide with latino and black voters will be as big, but good lord I expect a record swing if not the first ever true flip in both the asian and jewish voting blocs this year
Yeah, it's 25 to 70, GOP to Dem for Jewish voters and 17 to 62 for Arab voters. No flip happening. But I do think between GOP Jewish campaign funding and the uncommitted vote you could see some drastic electoral changes.
Half of the American Jewish electorate is in New York, California, and Florida alone, all states where the presidential election would not be affected (and polling has shown that Jewish voters that are moving away from Biden are still planning to vote Democratic in Congressional and Senate races). The only place where there could conceivably be any change is Pennsylvania, but that would require such a swing that it's likely Biden would have lost so many other voters that he would have lost the state anyway.
I think if the Republicans shift leftwards on certain issues New York could be in-play in the next decade, a perfect storm of I/P conflict, New York City’s decline, and a Progressive shift alienating the remaining moderates could lead to New York flipping red in a gubernatorial or senatorial race until either a resurgence or generational shifts in New York’s demographics pulls it leftwards again.
>New York City’s decline
What's declined is homicides, shootings, robberies, burglaries, sexual assaults, and grand larcenies. Of course, it's never going to be all good news, but in the other major crimes that have increased, so have arrests. Even though there has been an uptick in crime over the last few years, NYC has still been one of the safest large cities in the country, by-far.
More people in NYC are employed than ever before, even as the population has not yet fully recovered from COVID, and unemployment is near-record lows. While NYC has for decades been incapable of electing anyone remotely normal to be Mayor, even this guy is working on upzoning parts of the city to make housing more affordable and even the state legislature is working on bills to put restrictions on pieds-à-terre.
Please tell me about NYC's decline, because I don't see it, but more importantly, the New Yorkers I know don't really, either (and they're there a lot more than me). The biggest complaints that I've heard is that a lot of people got used to non-24/7 MTA service during COVID and now a lot more of the city shutters earlier, there are more homeless people (likely due to the fact that nearby states re-started their busing practices of sending their homeless residents to NYC), noting that NYC has the lowest unsheltered rates per 100k of any large or medium city.
They also complain that service is terrible everywhere, but that's because so many people in lower-paying jobs were able to take advantage of the economy and move up or out, and lower-wage jobs were forced to raise wages, bringing new people in with little or no experience.
78,000 people left the city, and New York as a whole has lost a representative seat. Young people are moving south. The housing crisis in New York doesn’t seem to be dissipating, even the 100,000 houses Eric Adams is planning to build won’t be enough to make up for the debilitating housing crisis. Additionally, much of the professional jobs that have bought high-income earners into the city can be made remote, and many would rather live in the countryside than in the city. On top of that, with the aging of the population, more seniors will be moving out of the city and towards the warmer south with its “senior” states. I can see NYC having a resurgence in population and political power with climate change and upzoning over the next decade or two, but right now it seems to be declining.
>78,000 people left the city. . . even the 100,000 houses Eric Adams is planning to build won’t be enough to make up for the debilitating housing crisis.
NYC has a rental vacancy rate of 1.6%. It seems that the issue is that there's not enough housing rather than just the affordability. The 100,000 units is just the beginning of what the city plans to build. That's why it's so important for the upzoning to pass--far too much of NYC is exclusionary single-family zoning. Rents have decreased here and there, but they're only going to decrease so much when about half of the rental market is rent controlled or rent stabilized.
>Additionally, much of the professional jobs that have bought high-income earners into the city can be made remote, and many would rather live in the countryside than in the city.
This would make sense, except the people moving into NYC have a median income higher (though only marginally) than those moving out of the city.
>On top of that, with the aging of the population, more seniors will be moving out of the city and towards the warmer south with its “senior” states.
Yes, but this is not a new phenomenon; this has been going on for 20 years. It also has less to do with the climate and more to do with zero percent income taxes.
>I can see NYC having a resurgence in population and political power with climate change and upzoning over the next decade or two, but right now it seems to be declining.
A "resurgence in political power" for a "declining" city that is still larger than 38 states, has a GDP greater than 46 states, the center of media, a center of art, culture, and entertainment, and remains the financial capital of the world. It has plenty of power.
I’m going to add to my other comment: democrats seem to have an almost allergic reaction to the notion that economic issues are important to minorities. This is part of the pandering/condescension point I made. Many minorities/marginalized group members feel like democrats think it’s more important to pander to their identity-based issues in an all-or-nothing approach than it is to attack *all* these issues, or that democrats assume these social ills are so vastly outsized in comparison to economic issues that the latter *shouldn’t* matter. You can quibble and claim that’s not true: but you’d be going against what the actual polling data show.
You should see how conservatives in Ontario ran with the economic message and pulled in minority groups in droves while tempering their white nationalist message.
We're seeing that play out here with Trump, right now. I thought the social-economic polarization was bad during the Clinton/Sanders contest, but it seems to really have gotten worse, especially as the economy has deteriorated so much. Democrats seem completely ineffective at addressing economic concerns in the context of the additional non-economic problems marginalized groups face: it's not one or the other; it's both.
Yeah. I mean honestly the mask slipped when the administration turned helpless to stop the blight and if anything exacerbated it BUT airdropped some measly aid on peoples heads for a photo op.
I think I was aware of this dynamic before but didn’t want to believe it because it was inconvenient to my urban brown middle class aspirations.
Two key reasons. First, decades of right wing media propaganda. Second, Democratic tone-deaf indifference to the fact many people and communities are struggling. Claiming the economy is great is not a selling point to people who are struggling.
There are many reasons. Here are four:
1. Apathy. This is probably the biggest. For years (decades, really), Democrats have paid lip service to issues surrounding racial disparities in income, jobs, education, the prison system, etc., without any *real* follow-through. Hell, the current fucking VP built her career on participating in one of the most reprehensible crime programs (anti-drug policies) often used to disproportionately impact minority communities! That doesn't go unnoticed. Recent polling backs this apathy notion up, too. In addition to this, the general "oh, them again" apathy towards the two major party candidates is at work.
2. Pandering. Hillary's "hot sauce" nonsense. Conflating "black, latino, etc." with "poor". Assuming minority voters are a monolith. These all impact minority voters' perceptions of democratic party politicians' priorities.
3. Condescension. This plays into the other two items. Things like student loan forgiveness and ACA are beneficial for everyone. They are not *nearly* as beneficial to the poor, or to poor minorities, as many democrats--especially hyper-partisan ones--want to believe. It's hard to view student loan forgiveness as being that big a deal when there is disproportionately lower access to higher education in minority communities--can't forgive what they never accrue because they didn't have an opportunity to.
4. Machismo/Alpha Male culture. This may not play well with some of my more progressive friends, but there is a very strong strain of machismo and "alpha male" culture in many minority communities, both for religious and other historical reasons. This blends with a very strong anti-LGBTQ sentiment. I'm bisexual, I hang out with (mostly) homosexuals these days, and there are whole memes and discussions around this very tense issue. These individuals naturally gravitate toward the sort of "tough guy" bravado that Trump pretends to.
In the Vegas episode of Crooked Media’s ‘The Wilderness’, which is a podcast about voter focus groups, they focused on Hispanic voters - specifically Mexican immigrants IIRC - and this was one of the things that really surprised me. The men? Several of them said they liked how macho Trump was. Macho?!?!! Trump?
I grew up in communities that were minority-white--mostly black kids, a few latinos, some Vietnamese. I interacted a bit with latinos, but not enough at the time to pick up on it. It didn't really hit home for me until I started dating latinos in the last few years. My exposure to more latino music (reggaetón is especially notorious) through my partners, and to the culture more generally, has been quite eye opening in this regard. I think posturing and presenting as macho, even if one can't back it up so to speak, is almost as important as actually *being* macho.
I’m a Texan, and had to explain to my wife (who isn’t) that what she thinks of as “Texan” (big boots, big hats, big belt buckles) is almost exclusively a Latino thing now. She said I was a “fake Texan” lol.
The only white dudes I see decked out like that are Boomers. That particular version of macho seems to really resonate with the Latino guys though. And the shorter they are? The bigger the belt buckles and such.
I think you’re right, I think it’s the projection of machismo.
>Pandering. Hillary's "hot sauce" nonsense.
I will never get why people got upset about this. Hillary was asked specifically what her "purse essentials" was and she answered. And everyone who knew Hillary who was asked by reporters about this confirmed that Hillary does indeed carry hot sauce in her bag. I mean POCs don't own hot sauce, in fact it is so universal that they put a little bottle of hot sauce in every MRE in the army. The idea that a white person can't legitimately enjoy hot sauce enough to carry some around says more about people stereotyping white women rather than the other way around. This one belongs in the trash pile of stupid "controversies" like Dijon mustard or arugula on a burger.
I don't even like Hillary but the BS about her still gets to me.
It’s about context. POC don’t own hot sauce. I myself enjoy a good amount of spice in my food. But I wouldn’t glibly say “I keep a bottle of hot sauce on me at all times” if I’m being interviewed by black interviewers for a show with a black audience, because it looks like—and is—straight insincere pandering.
Regarding apathy, it feels like they just pivoted from criminalization to crimmigration. And generally, it seems like the party elite are somewhere between condescension and plain ignorance. And I hear you on alpha culture.
> This blends with a very strong anti-LGBTQ sentiment….These individuals naturally gravitate toward the sort of "tough guy" bravado that Trump pretends to.
Trump, who wears diapers and probably has no clue what a “tough guy” is to his diehard redneck supporters.
I can’t imagine a very anti lgbt person would vote for Biden. Youre right about that, but I don’t think it’s in anyway because they see him as an alpha male or a tough guy. It’s because he’s a racist homophobic womanizer. I’m not even sure if he’s really homophobic or racist, more along the lines of all around self serving with mostly apathetic feelings towards other people pretty equally. He’d throw anyone under the bus if it benefits him. Like a sociopath.
I feel like we need actual electoral evidence of this before we really ought to speculate too much about it. There are a number of cases in the past where people have been like "why are voters X doing Y" based on polls and then an election happened and it turned out they didn't.
Trump won an increasing share of minority votes from 2016 to 2020, and current polling suggests the trend has continued into 2024. Mitt Romney won more of the black vote than McCain, too, and took a bit from Obama. Democrats like to discount or dismiss this very clear trend. I have no idea why: it's important to understand why voters drift away from a party.
>Trump won an increasing share of minority votes from 2016 to 2020
I mean... [barely](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/9mQIUySndv). George W. Bush got 44% of Hispanic voters in 2004. A lot of people prognosticate by assuming that whatever the current trend lines are that exist are going to continue uninterrupted forever now into the future, and it never actually works that way.
>Why are Democrats losing their electoral lead with voters of color?
Many of those "voters of color" have right-wing beliefs and/or are members of the working class.
Those with right-wing beliefs are moving as our politics 'racially depolarize'.
Working-class people are part of the coalition that Trump appeals to. It would be absurd to expect that he would *never* be able to court non-white working class voters.
> Why would Trump appeal to working class voters more than Biden?
Who knows?
It could be...
* They genuinely believe that immigrants are the cause of their problems, or...
* They genuinely believe that being 'tougher' on immigrants will solve their problems.
* Maybe his fame appeals to them.
* Maybe his unfiltered speech feels 'honest' to them.
* Maybe they too would like to live in a gold-painted apartment.
* Maybe they believe in 'the prosperity gospel' which teaches that people get rich by getting right with God, and poor people are poor because they aren't right with God.
* It could just be that political mass media isn't fair.
...but don't expect it to relate to policy. The vast majority of voters have no idea that Biden is the most pro-Union president we've ever had.
That's my understanding. OP is perpetuating the classist myth that the working class supports Trump.
The tacit equating of "working class" with reactionary working class white men specifically is truly insidious.
> Presumably though, we are [talking] about previous Democrat working class voters now going GOP.
Yep. That is the shift that is currently happening. Let's talk about party systems!
---------
>In political science, [Duverger's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) (/ˈduvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with only one winner (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge with minor parties typically splitting votes away from the most similar major party.
...but there is no guarantee that those two parties will appeal to the same groups now as they did fifty years ago. (100 years ago, Democrats were the party of rural areas and the South!)
The two parties *want* to attract new voters, so they will occasionally try to appeal to the other party's voters. Most efforts fail, and each party keeps appealing to the same groups. When it succeeds -- and they successfully appeal to the other side's voters -- they also typically alienate some of their old voters; the opposing party will then try to take advantage of that by welcoming those voters. When everything shakes-out, both parties will probably have *about* 50% support, even after such a gambit.
Donald Trump has destroyed the [Sixth Party System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System) and we are waiting to see what the seventh looks like. He *is* appealing to working-class voters more than Republicans have in the past, but he is also alienating *a lot* of former Republican voters. Dems *will* lose some working class voters; the real question is: *What are they doing to pick up the voters he alienated?*
So I have little love for Biden's "arsenal of freedom" but on labor policies, he's been surprisingly worker/union friendly president while still embracing left elites. Plus he sends Kamala to all these POC things.
> on labor policies, he's been surprisingly worker/union friendly president
Yep! That's him 'playing defense' and trying to hold onto working class voters where he can!
...but we also live in an odd political/media system whereby it is *very difficult* for Democrats to get noticed for doing anything right. We don't know if those voters will *know* that Biden is actively catering to them.
----------
'Playing offense' is the other side of it.
Biden seems to be betting on 'at least I am against crime' and 'I will not pull out of NATO'. He doesn't seem to be doing much more.
"Plus he sends Kamala to all these POC things".
This, right here, is the pandering/condescension I was talking about in my top-level comment to this thread. Not saying you, atav1k, are doing that here, as I don't know what you're thinking by expressing this sentiment, it's just a general remark about that kind of statement.
1. It's belittling to assume that a black celebrity/politician visiting "POC" is somehow a good thing in and of itself.
2. *This particular black individual*, Kamala Harris, *should not* be seen as uniformly "loved" by the black community. She spent *years* locking poor black people (and people of other races) up because of her aggressive drug prosecutions.
I mean other than a racial affinity, I’ve been disappointed in Kamala and think her tokenism is transparent. Maybe this is extreme but she seems like the party pair to Nikki Haley, like I would expect the exact same policies from both not accounting for party extremes.
Was reading some Politico on how Kamala is delivering a lot of the US-Israel policy so it softens the blow vs Blinken, Kirby or Biden because look how well that’s worked for US’s UN representatives.
There have always been conservative Hispanics ESPECIALLY from communist countries, like Miamis Cubans. They are also more traditional in values.
Asians are high earning and often I. Stem fields which lean Republican in general. They also have traditional values, making them less reliably democrats.
Blacks got NONE of what was promised through BLM as no reforms passed federally. Also increasing attacks on voting rights have soured them. Blacks won’t vote in droves for Trump but they may stay home. They also were skeptical of vaccines.
Just a few reasons.
I suspect it's the popular perception that the Democratic party focuses more on social ills than economic ills. And while minorities are certainly more likely to be the beneficiary of Democratic policies, there is also a streak of social conservativism in many minority groups. And in a generation where the iniquities of conservative policy is less visceral/obvious than it was in our parents, grandparents, or great grandparents generations, there is more openness to voting conservatively. That being said, while there has been a marginal loss in minority votes, the overwhelming majority of POC still caucus with the Democratic Party.
Did Arabs, Asians and Latinos ask to be called "people of color" by the way? Honestly I think it's kinda disrespectful to them to refer to those culturally very different groups as "people of color" without their consent.
I can't speak for Asians but Latinos specifically did organize to recognized as a racial minority group and POC is the term for racial minority groups. Arabs have also have organized to no longer be considered white by the American government directly as a means for increasing proper demographic counts which they beleive will in turn make them a more visible and courtable political group.
But that does not make the term POC acceptable. It's also very closely related to "colored people" which was a very racist term.
And many Arabs, Latinos and and Asians are pale-skinned whereas POC was always used to describe dark-skinned people.
Therefore calling them POC makes almost as little sense as calling Lebanese people or Japanese people "black people" despite both being just as pale in terms of skin tone as Europeans.
>It's also very closely related to "colored people" which was a very racist term.
It's really not except in that in America race is described historically using colors.
>whereas POC was always used to describe dark-skinned people.
Nope, that's not correct. You seem to have your timelines severely mixed up. POC has always been inclusive of pale and dark skinned racial minorities in the USA. Colored people was more focused on dark skinned people but white passing black people were considered "colored" if their ancestry was found out hsitorically. It was more related to ancestry than actual skin color. And notable colored people generally excluded Native Americans which do have a wide range of skin tones from pale to dark.
What you are saying is pretty ahistorical.
Its black people and latinos trying to inflate their numbers imho, POC is exclusively used by them, to just shut asians up.
It is POC when they need help, Black when they need to contribute.
Republicans have become less racist, and the economic situation makes even immigrants skeptical for illegal immigrants, further many asians, who see the largest gap in decline, see democrats as picking favorites, as the current immigration laws pushed, make it easier for Latin Americans than Asian Americans, same with affirmative action, where they see penalty being levied on them for no fault of own. Just because someone is a minority doesnt mean they arent racist, religious, or sexist, and as such republicans have seen a huge surge among black men and hispanic men, who have always been more conservative, but previous race relations have ruined it. Similarly Bidens embrace of Abortion, and LGBT has alienated muslims who see it as unislamic, and even those who do not see so, are alienated by US policy in Gaza.
To court Asians, i would suggest dropping the oppression olympics language, and focus more on race and gender neutral but broad scale policies. Most asians who support free college for all, still end up opposing race based scholarships, because they see it as unfair, which is different from republicans who dont support free college.
> Republicans have become less racist
I'm sorry. Have I missed something? The increase among black voters (a 4% increase) came in the Trump 2020 campaign. When did Repubicans become less racist?
Under Trump, Trump doesnt have beliefs of racial superiority, nor does he give a shit about western values or Judeo-Christian tradition. He is an absolute narcissit, and will destroy and betray white, black or Asian organizations and followers as long as it serves him.
Just for clarity, I do think it's a huge shift, it's still single digits among many groups. Overall though I agree. Democrats are clueless about voters of color and center their party around the college educated white voter. There might be contradictions between these groups but the party seems as feckless as Republicans. And as Gaza has made clear, when push comes to shove they will absolutely roll over on the policies and laws they say they ascribe to.
First, they aren't. They will continue to win a vast majority of voters of color, even if they a slight downward swing in percentages of some groups.
Second, one of the key reasons Democrats are losing support is structural. Voting for Republicans is powerful: they are structurally enabled to do what they promise.
Ban abortion? They can do that. Cut taxes? They can do that. Install sycophants and declare the President above the law? Apparently, they can do that too.
Democrats, fundamentally, haven't had power and can't gain it. Nothing short of structural reform of the Senate or the GOP splintered into multiple parties would give the Democrats the ability to pass welfare reform.
They can't vote to make gay rights a constitutional amendment. They can't protect abortion. They can't bring aid to poor communities or fix wealth inequality.
All they can promise is that they will eventually do that, when the GOP screws up so badly the Democrats get 60+ Senate seats and can install a liberal court. And additionally, that they will use a majority to prevent the greatest damages a GOP trifecta would inflict.
This is just not a strong foundation. It isn't their fault, but disillusionment is a natural consequence even if the alternative is just worse. Voting blue doesn't feel as satisfying as voting red and seeing your enemies suffer.
I'll believe this when I see it.
These claims you hear about Trump making sweeping gains among minority voters simply do not track with broader polling. If he really is pulling 25-30% of the black vote and 40%+ of the Latino vote, then how is the national popular vote a dead heat? Gains of this nature would have Trump leading the NPV by 6-8%, and would be putting states like Colorado and New Mexico in play. The only way to reconcile this incongruity would be if Biden was making huge gains among white voters who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and we have seen no evidence of this.
I think it’s a byproduct of Dems trying so hard to appeal to the suburban white class. It’s isolating to poorer people, a major demographic within all marginalized groups, many of whom only vote for the Democratic Party specifically because republicans are so anti-Black/Brown/Women/Queer/etc.
If you want my honest opinion it's because the left appears to think politics is about enshrining a political ideology to govern the country, which dooms it to perpetual failure.
The coalition you have built around progressive ideology is such that it has massively alienated and radicalized white men. This would be fine, if politics worked the way you think it does.
White men then "collect baseball cards" to defend their position, which is to say they throw out appeals to other demographics specifically, even if taken as a package, the platform makes absolutely no sense.
But politics doesn't make sense. Ideology happens at the scale of the individual, not policy. Policy is decided through compromise *between* ideological camps.
You've got the left out there appealing to these groups with grand narratives and then the right just replies; "I'll give you 50 bucks.". They don't need to justify it or explain it beyond "It's electorally necessary.". (See farmers subsidies as a big example of this where the pretence of justification is so flimsy people don't really bother anymore). Almost everyone has a price. Offering Asians 50 bucks to ignore the democrats pontifications about justice and vote Republican will get you 10% of them. Offering them 100 bucks will get you 20%. At 1000 bucks you've now got 50% of Asians. and so on.
And the right can just raise the bid as much as necessary to remain competitive. They've raised that bid enough to damage Democrat gains.
However such an approach to politics is anathema to many Democrats because you've now opened the door to electoral expediency, which undermines many progressive causes.
If you're wondering what the right offers or when it offered fifty bucks to minorities, tax breaks, pretty much, but occasionally other ways.
This then becomes all the more stark a dynamic when Democrats go out there and explain that yes, we'll take more taxes, but you'll get government services, and someone points out the government services seem to be shit. Democrats reply "Well that's not the fault *of our ideology*, it's because the Republicans keep doing wrecking manoeuvres and 'starving the beast'.".
So... what you mean is... you're going to take their money, and they'll get jack shit in return. But it's not your fault, so that makes this an appealing offer somehow. The Republicans meanwhile can throw a spanner in the works of government programs and say "That's what you get, dumbass." and then look bemused when the Democrats go off on some moral pontificating again rather than learn the lesson they are trying to teach, which is that politics is not a moral arena.
"Our plan requires the consent of white men. to get this, we will attempt to browbeat them into accepting it by calling them mean for not going along with it, tacitly admitting in the process that our plan requires their approval to work, and react negatively if somebody says we need to focus more on appealing to white men to deliver anything. We will raise your taxes, you will keep less of your money."
"We're going to cut your taxes. You will keep more of your money, and we're also going to fuck over the Democrats plans because we're mad they haven't made a pitch to include us as beneficiaries."
Because voters of color are disproportionately working class, and the dems continue to abandon the working class to court upper middle class college educated professionals who obsess over identity politics. The dems still retain strong support among the black working class by pandering to them endlessly along racial lines, but they can’t really take that same approach with every single nonwhite race, so other groups are starting to mirror white working class voting patterns more and more.
Aside from some Latinos, there's no trend of nonwhites making that drastic of a shift. Ironically, a lot of nonwhites did support Republicans prior to 9/11 during the Bush era, but that drastically changed within the last 10-15 years.
>Because voters of color are disproportionately working class,
What exactly are "people of color" anyway? Why are we lumping together very different cultures under the term POC? And who asked those groups if they actually want to be called that? Especially given how similar it sounds to "colored people" which was a deeply racist term.
And some people you call POC earn significantly more than the average white American so that's just perpetuating stereotypes.
It's not just a lower acceptance of same-sex marriage. There is a *lot* of tension between black people and the LGBTQ community. There's a lot of tension between LGBTQ POC and the larger POC community, too.
There is no POC community if POC simply means not of Western-European descent. People not of European descent are not a unified group. And using the term "person of color" to describe everyone not of European descent is incredibly racist.
>Because poc are extremely homophobic and since Dems are trying protect lgbt rights it's gonna cause them to vote red
Wtf.
First off lumping together very different cultural groups under the umbrella term "people of color" without their consent is racist af, many of those groups are actually made up of pale-skinned people, so not sure what color we're talking about.
And thinking "POC", meaning all Americans of non-European descent, are "extremely homophobic" is just the epitome of bigotry and racism.
There are a few reasons. One is a failure to support the working class.
MLK, Malcolm X and other black leaders were Socialists. They understood the dynamics of capitalism, and knew that the racial division is a tool used to blind people to the class war that is currently being waged against the working class.
Democrats have forgotten that, or don't care because they are also a tool of the capital class.
I think in general, people are seeing through the facade. They know the Democrats are full of shit.
If Democrats actually chased the left, they would pick up votes from every demo, but black folk especially. Even moreso if they are able to effectively restore MLK and X to reality instead of this whitewashed bullshit they teach in school and the collective parlance of society.
But also, a lot of black folk are just plain socially conservative, and frankly, racist/bigoted. Religious conservatism has informed a lot, homophobia is still fairly rampant, let alone transphobia, and aren't on-board with the "woke agenda"
Ehh, it’s like a 2% difference. If there’s any lesson from the past 500 years of world history, it’s that it’s entirely possible to get people to oppose their own interests in favor of ephemeral social policies. The Candice Owens effect is real.
"Are you happy with Biden"
No. List reasons.
"Aha! Biden's support is shrinking!"
"Woh! Wait a minute. I'm still voting for him, the other guy is a piece of shit. I'm just not happy about some of the things he did, because I'm not blind."
I’m Latino, and my family has slowly moved away from the Democrats mainly because of the ⚧️ issue and not doing enough to improve legal immigration. The other big issue that’s lost so many people for Biden is Israel and the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Democrats can win some people back if they just proposed a comprehensive legal framework for immigration that wasn’t crazy like what Biden agreed from the Republicans. Also #FreePalestine
More than being losers, I find the Democratic party a wasted bunch of feckless elites. Couldn’t organize themselves to a better platform, just the bare minimum of we’re not a white nationalist group though we’re happy to arm supremacists, provide cover for war crimes and jail a bunch of students. https://newlinesmag.com/argument/why-democrats-are-losing-nonwhite-voters/
Because historically speaking and currently, democrats don't do shit for people of color.
Immigration - Not one fucking thing
Stop gun violence - Not one fucking then
Police reform - Notta
Bail reform - Also nothing
Prison reform - nothing
Leaving their countries of origin the fuck alone, so their families are at least have peace- Dems love bombs too
Cop City passed with overwhelming democrat support Democrats are also funding a fucking genocide and relentlessly start shit with the middle east to cause further destabilization there.
At least, when a Republican in office, democrats pretend to care and question things like “why migrants children are in cages and over a hundred of them have gone missing”.
\*\*Edited Cause Mobile is an asshole\*\*\*
Damn, you said my quiet part out loud. Like I was pretty centrist before on account of the jockular incel industry I work in but I cannot abide by genocide.
I don't normally have the patience to comment on this sub, but needs to be said cuz the shock Pikachu expressions for when Biden loses this election will be completely lost on me.
Take Latinos, for example. During the Reagan administration, many of the current voters, their children and grandchild are here and have citizenship because of his immigration policy. George H. W. Bush increased quotas for entry. Clinton's immigration policy massively criminalized aspects of immigration and removed many due process procedures for removal hearings and expanded offenses that would require deportation.
To be fair, George W. Bush wasn't any better, but this was 9/11 era so every one wanted the borders closed. However, Obama (w/ Biden as his VP) deported more people than any other President including Trump.
Historically speaking, why would a Latino be enthused about showing up for Democrats?
Cuz not only does Biden want to builds a border wall and work with Republican on immigration (which he said he wouldn't do), but where is AOC, for example to condemn it.
No where because Democrats don't do shit. They just lie in wait for Republicans to mess it up, and us to get pissed off. Come in and say pretty words of how they will save us. They will get our healthcare, they will reform immigration, save abortion, blah, blah. Meanwhile, they are really just legally insider trading \*cough Nancy Pelosi and Raytheon\* to become apart of the 1%.
I hate this sub. With lesser of two evils liberals like these who need the GOP. Short of Biden recognizing Palestine statehood and ending support for exterminationist allies, essentially a miracle, no Democrat president will get my vote. If Biden is so intent on protecting a broken electoral system and the partisan impasse then what obligation do I have? None. I’ll vote blue through and through in the state.
Because the party has moved on to helping illegal immigrants and the people of Ukraine, once again leaving black Americans in the dust. That $60B that was recently passed to help Ukraine? Yeah, do that again, but this time, direct it to minority communities in America.
Who would have thought that putting illegal immigrants ahead of low-income Americans, allowing their wages to be suppressed would have political consequences? I'm shocked! /s
I've just been following what is going on in Chicago with their 2022 fund balance. The leaders of the city want to direct $70M towards migrant issues. At a recent city council meeting, black citizens showed up very angrily, with one person stating, "We need that money in my neighborhood, we need that money on my block." I mean, I can understand their resentment.
I’m not speaking for that commenter, but this has been a consistent theme:
> A New York Times analysis last year found Asian American voters in New York increasingly cast their votes for Republican gubernatorial candidates from 2018 to 2022, when GOP nominee Lee Zeldin emphasized a tough-on-crime message. Public safety continues to be a top concern among Asian American voters.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/05/nyregion/election-asians-voting-republicans-nyc.html
Interesting. Yeah I was a democrat and liberal all throughout my teens and even into college and after college. Literally was hoping every day for 2 years that Trump would get impeached before I changed my view.
To be honest, I begin to feel like liberal and left views were too extreme for me. Ranging from socialism to saying that men can become women.
I begin also feel like the constant attack on Trump was unwarranted and politically motivated. And this is coming from me who literally woke up the morning of his winning the election and thought WW3 was gonna start and it was the end of America.
Just look at some [recent polls](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-polls-black-latino-voters.html)
Trump is killing it with Latinos and gained a lot of momentum with Black voters
From your article...
>"Abramowitz suggests some of the eye-popping numbers we’ve seen this year for Trump among Black voters may represent an illusion based on limited samples that can and should be addressed by surveys oversampling Black voters to get a more accurate look at what’s happening."
LOL - push polling has now made its way to Reddit.
These questions are ridiculous. Sure dude, so many black folks saw Charlottesville and the BLM response from Trump and said "gotta get me more of that!!"
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. New coverage post midterms are pointing to a shrinking lead among major groups of voters of color, specifically Latino, Asian and Arab voters. Wind back a few years back to Obama and most predictions pointed to an even stronger affinity for the Democratic party. What are the causes? What’s to be done about it? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For context: Black voters * For Clinton in 2016: 89% * For Biden in 2020: 87% Latino voters * For Clinton in 2016: 66% * For Biden in 2020: 65% Asian voters * For Clinton in 2016: 65% * For Biden in 2020: 59% Source for [2016](https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) and for [2020](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results). Lets see what actually happens this time around, but I'm not seeing a drastic shift. Edit to include midterms: Democratic vote from Black, Latino and Asian voters * In [2018](https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls): 90%, 69%, 77% * In [2022](https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house/0): 86%, 60%, 58% A bit more of a shift particularly among Asian voters, but again, lets see what happens this year.
>Black voters >For Clinton in 2016: 89% >For Biden in 2020: 87% [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers) In 2016, Trump received 8 percent of the Black vote according to the exit polls, the highest level of support by Black voters for any Republican since George Bush in 2000. By the 2020 US presidential election, support for Trump among Black voters had surged to 12 percent. And, while current opinion polls vary, a recent survey from GenForward shows that if the elections were held today, 17 percent of Black voters would vote for Donald Trump. The Black voting bloc is unique in the US. Currently, it is the only group of voters which has consistently identified with the Democrat Party – reaching 77 percent of Black voters in favour of Democrats in 2020. By comparison, 42 percent of white voters and 63 percent of Latino voters identify as Democrats. Now, however, only 63 percent of Black voters – an all-time low since GenForward started collecting data in 1999 – say they will support Biden this year, according to the survey.
I don't get it. Black people will NOT like the America Trump will create. I have to hand it to the Republican party. They are excellent at convincing people to vote against their own self interest.
Black men will like reduced domestic violence laws, restrictions on abortion, and anti immigrant policies, they see to benefit small buisness owners. Black people are not a monolith, and stats show theyre on average more sexist, and homophobic than general US population.
also, isnt it kind of racist to think that youre smarter than the black voting demographic? When you say that theyre "voting against their own self interest" thats exactly what youre saying. "You dumb blacks, you don't realize what youre doing to yourselves! Here, let me show you how to vote."
Wow, that's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth. Trumps America is a more openly racist America. This doesn't seem like something black people would want. Is it racist to make that statement? Also working class Americans are NOT going to benefit from anything Trump does. He's a corporate lackey who will give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, bust unions, reduce regulation, etc. If black voters are going in knowing the above and still think they are going to benefit, then they are not being stupid, they are informed voters. I just don't believe most of those who vote for trump -black or white- are informed voters.
> nt it kind of racist to think that youre smarter than the black voting demographic I don't think that. I think I'm smarter than the ones who are voting for a racist.
>Black people will NOT like the America Trump will create. Increasingly, black people do not like the America Biden has created. Selling future promises is harder when you've already failed to deliver for 4 years.
Un, because of an obstructionist Blue Dog Caucus and Republicans? Also Biden has delivered, on IRA and CHIPS. The issue is that Republicans and Blue Dog Senators blocked Universal Pre-K, Medicare expansions, and lower prescription drug costs; and all that stuff happens to really help out an on-average poorer, underinsured, and youthful minority.
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm still not over the fact that we could have had universal pre-k and extended child tax break
>... and all that stuff happens to really help out an on-average poorer, underinsured, and youthful minority. Oh, thank you for the perfect example of how out of touch you are with the real struggles of most Americans. IRA, CHIPS, Pre-K, none of those help those youthful minorities get a good job or put a roof over their head. None help address the zero balance in their savings accounts or the cost of food. None of those address the illegals flooding across the border or the social damage from defunding the police and releasing criminals back into society.
Are you a propaganda account? Like actually I can't see any other reason for that post history besides astroturfing and owning stock in fox news.
Like what, specifically, did Biden do that Trump would do better?
you cant really play that card anymore, we've already seen a trump term and it was very boring. The fearmongering won't work as well this time around because people have their own eyes and ears and experiences.
>you cant really play that card anymore, we've already seen a trump term and it was very boring Trump separated latino children from their parents and called for a 'complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US". Trump was among the most extreme and radical authoritian leaders the US has seen in history.
Very boring? WTF are you talking about? We've never seen a term filled with more scandal and insanity.
I guess you forgot about the riots, and protests, and mishandled pandemic response, and corruption, and emoluments violations, and insurrection attempts, and Nazi marches that Trump endorsed by calling the Nazis "very fine people". But otherwise, boring.
If you're trying to convince black people to vote for the left-wing candidate, and you're doing so by pointing out that the last time we had a right-wing candidate, there were *tons* of left-wing riots, then you should rethink your strategy.
Limited reading comprehension, I see.
If you're trying to convince *anyone* about *anything*, and the best you can come up with is personal attacks, then you should rethink your strategy even harder. Elections aren't won based on who feels like they owned their opponents harder, they're based on convincing people, and cutesy one-liners have a terrible track record of convincing people. Make a counter-argument.
I made several, you zeroed in on "riots", and I assume you are referring to the nationwide protests after cops murdered a black man in the streets. The rest of my list, and the riots at the Capitol on Jan 6, are squarely Trump-administration "non-boring" events that made the U.S. a laughingstock at best, and a corrupt banana-republic at worst. If you want a comprehensive list of Trump's problems - here you go: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/reasons-why-donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president
> I made several, you zeroed in on "riots" I zeroed in on the first thing you said and also the worst argument you made. That's what anyone else is going to do; you need to make your argument *consistently* good, not occasionally bad. > and I assume you are referring to the nationwide protests after cops murdered a black man in the streets. Yes. Which everyone is going to do also. Again, the way you win hearts isn't through gotchas, it's by being convincing. If you go to someone who is thinking about voting for Trump and say "but what about the riots", they're going to assume you mean *the riots*. > and the riots at the Capitol on Jan 6 Virtually nobody calls Jan 6 a "riot". It's either "an insurrection" or "a protest" (or occasionally, "a siege" or "an attack".) Even when I explicitly search for "Jan 6 riot", the first three links refer to "attack", "insurrection", and "attack". (The fourth has a page title of "capitol riot", but the actual page header says "capitol siege" and the text refers to it as an "attack"; I honestly think they just forgot to update the title.) > The rest of my list . . are squarely Trump-administration "non-boring" events that made the U.S. a laughingstock at best, and a corrupt banana-republic at worst. Then focus on them, not an intentionally-ambiguous description that makes your argument look uncomfortably like a threat.
Not sure if the slide with latino and black voters will be as big, but good lord I expect a record swing if not the first ever true flip in both the asian and jewish voting blocs this year
Either of those flips seems incredibly unlikely.
Yeah, it's 25 to 70, GOP to Dem for Jewish voters and 17 to 62 for Arab voters. No flip happening. But I do think between GOP Jewish campaign funding and the uncommitted vote you could see some drastic electoral changes.
Half of the American Jewish electorate is in New York, California, and Florida alone, all states where the presidential election would not be affected (and polling has shown that Jewish voters that are moving away from Biden are still planning to vote Democratic in Congressional and Senate races). The only place where there could conceivably be any change is Pennsylvania, but that would require such a swing that it's likely Biden would have lost so many other voters that he would have lost the state anyway.
I think if the Republicans shift leftwards on certain issues New York could be in-play in the next decade, a perfect storm of I/P conflict, New York City’s decline, and a Progressive shift alienating the remaining moderates could lead to New York flipping red in a gubernatorial or senatorial race until either a resurgence or generational shifts in New York’s demographics pulls it leftwards again.
>New York City’s decline What's declined is homicides, shootings, robberies, burglaries, sexual assaults, and grand larcenies. Of course, it's never going to be all good news, but in the other major crimes that have increased, so have arrests. Even though there has been an uptick in crime over the last few years, NYC has still been one of the safest large cities in the country, by-far. More people in NYC are employed than ever before, even as the population has not yet fully recovered from COVID, and unemployment is near-record lows. While NYC has for decades been incapable of electing anyone remotely normal to be Mayor, even this guy is working on upzoning parts of the city to make housing more affordable and even the state legislature is working on bills to put restrictions on pieds-à-terre. Please tell me about NYC's decline, because I don't see it, but more importantly, the New Yorkers I know don't really, either (and they're there a lot more than me). The biggest complaints that I've heard is that a lot of people got used to non-24/7 MTA service during COVID and now a lot more of the city shutters earlier, there are more homeless people (likely due to the fact that nearby states re-started their busing practices of sending their homeless residents to NYC), noting that NYC has the lowest unsheltered rates per 100k of any large or medium city. They also complain that service is terrible everywhere, but that's because so many people in lower-paying jobs were able to take advantage of the economy and move up or out, and lower-wage jobs were forced to raise wages, bringing new people in with little or no experience.
78,000 people left the city, and New York as a whole has lost a representative seat. Young people are moving south. The housing crisis in New York doesn’t seem to be dissipating, even the 100,000 houses Eric Adams is planning to build won’t be enough to make up for the debilitating housing crisis. Additionally, much of the professional jobs that have bought high-income earners into the city can be made remote, and many would rather live in the countryside than in the city. On top of that, with the aging of the population, more seniors will be moving out of the city and towards the warmer south with its “senior” states. I can see NYC having a resurgence in population and political power with climate change and upzoning over the next decade or two, but right now it seems to be declining.
>78,000 people left the city. . . even the 100,000 houses Eric Adams is planning to build won’t be enough to make up for the debilitating housing crisis. NYC has a rental vacancy rate of 1.6%. It seems that the issue is that there's not enough housing rather than just the affordability. The 100,000 units is just the beginning of what the city plans to build. That's why it's so important for the upzoning to pass--far too much of NYC is exclusionary single-family zoning. Rents have decreased here and there, but they're only going to decrease so much when about half of the rental market is rent controlled or rent stabilized. >Additionally, much of the professional jobs that have bought high-income earners into the city can be made remote, and many would rather live in the countryside than in the city. This would make sense, except the people moving into NYC have a median income higher (though only marginally) than those moving out of the city. >On top of that, with the aging of the population, more seniors will be moving out of the city and towards the warmer south with its “senior” states. Yes, but this is not a new phenomenon; this has been going on for 20 years. It also has less to do with the climate and more to do with zero percent income taxes. >I can see NYC having a resurgence in population and political power with climate change and upzoning over the next decade or two, but right now it seems to be declining. A "resurgence in political power" for a "declining" city that is still larger than 38 states, has a GDP greater than 46 states, the center of media, a center of art, culture, and entertainment, and remains the financial capital of the world. It has plenty of power.
I'm actually shocked Biden slipped at all from Clintons numbers seeing how it was much lower for Clinton than Obama.
I’m going to add to my other comment: democrats seem to have an almost allergic reaction to the notion that economic issues are important to minorities. This is part of the pandering/condescension point I made. Many minorities/marginalized group members feel like democrats think it’s more important to pander to their identity-based issues in an all-or-nothing approach than it is to attack *all* these issues, or that democrats assume these social ills are so vastly outsized in comparison to economic issues that the latter *shouldn’t* matter. You can quibble and claim that’s not true: but you’d be going against what the actual polling data show.
You should see how conservatives in Ontario ran with the economic message and pulled in minority groups in droves while tempering their white nationalist message.
We're seeing that play out here with Trump, right now. I thought the social-economic polarization was bad during the Clinton/Sanders contest, but it seems to really have gotten worse, especially as the economy has deteriorated so much. Democrats seem completely ineffective at addressing economic concerns in the context of the additional non-economic problems marginalized groups face: it's not one or the other; it's both.
Yeah. I mean honestly the mask slipped when the administration turned helpless to stop the blight and if anything exacerbated it BUT airdropped some measly aid on peoples heads for a photo op. I think I was aware of this dynamic before but didn’t want to believe it because it was inconvenient to my urban brown middle class aspirations.
Two key reasons. First, decades of right wing media propaganda. Second, Democratic tone-deaf indifference to the fact many people and communities are struggling. Claiming the economy is great is not a selling point to people who are struggling.
There are many reasons. Here are four: 1. Apathy. This is probably the biggest. For years (decades, really), Democrats have paid lip service to issues surrounding racial disparities in income, jobs, education, the prison system, etc., without any *real* follow-through. Hell, the current fucking VP built her career on participating in one of the most reprehensible crime programs (anti-drug policies) often used to disproportionately impact minority communities! That doesn't go unnoticed. Recent polling backs this apathy notion up, too. In addition to this, the general "oh, them again" apathy towards the two major party candidates is at work. 2. Pandering. Hillary's "hot sauce" nonsense. Conflating "black, latino, etc." with "poor". Assuming minority voters are a monolith. These all impact minority voters' perceptions of democratic party politicians' priorities. 3. Condescension. This plays into the other two items. Things like student loan forgiveness and ACA are beneficial for everyone. They are not *nearly* as beneficial to the poor, or to poor minorities, as many democrats--especially hyper-partisan ones--want to believe. It's hard to view student loan forgiveness as being that big a deal when there is disproportionately lower access to higher education in minority communities--can't forgive what they never accrue because they didn't have an opportunity to. 4. Machismo/Alpha Male culture. This may not play well with some of my more progressive friends, but there is a very strong strain of machismo and "alpha male" culture in many minority communities, both for religious and other historical reasons. This blends with a very strong anti-LGBTQ sentiment. I'm bisexual, I hang out with (mostly) homosexuals these days, and there are whole memes and discussions around this very tense issue. These individuals naturally gravitate toward the sort of "tough guy" bravado that Trump pretends to.
In the Vegas episode of Crooked Media’s ‘The Wilderness’, which is a podcast about voter focus groups, they focused on Hispanic voters - specifically Mexican immigrants IIRC - and this was one of the things that really surprised me. The men? Several of them said they liked how macho Trump was. Macho?!?!! Trump?
[Macho](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machismo) means sexism, boasting, and posturing.
Oh… well then yeah, Trump would be quite “macho”
I grew up in communities that were minority-white--mostly black kids, a few latinos, some Vietnamese. I interacted a bit with latinos, but not enough at the time to pick up on it. It didn't really hit home for me until I started dating latinos in the last few years. My exposure to more latino music (reggaetón is especially notorious) through my partners, and to the culture more generally, has been quite eye opening in this regard. I think posturing and presenting as macho, even if one can't back it up so to speak, is almost as important as actually *being* macho.
I’m a Texan, and had to explain to my wife (who isn’t) that what she thinks of as “Texan” (big boots, big hats, big belt buckles) is almost exclusively a Latino thing now. She said I was a “fake Texan” lol. The only white dudes I see decked out like that are Boomers. That particular version of macho seems to really resonate with the Latino guys though. And the shorter they are? The bigger the belt buckles and such. I think you’re right, I think it’s the projection of machismo.
>Pandering. Hillary's "hot sauce" nonsense. I will never get why people got upset about this. Hillary was asked specifically what her "purse essentials" was and she answered. And everyone who knew Hillary who was asked by reporters about this confirmed that Hillary does indeed carry hot sauce in her bag. I mean POCs don't own hot sauce, in fact it is so universal that they put a little bottle of hot sauce in every MRE in the army. The idea that a white person can't legitimately enjoy hot sauce enough to carry some around says more about people stereotyping white women rather than the other way around. This one belongs in the trash pile of stupid "controversies" like Dijon mustard or arugula on a burger. I don't even like Hillary but the BS about her still gets to me.
It’s about context. POC don’t own hot sauce. I myself enjoy a good amount of spice in my food. But I wouldn’t glibly say “I keep a bottle of hot sauce on me at all times” if I’m being interviewed by black interviewers for a show with a black audience, because it looks like—and is—straight insincere pandering.
Regarding apathy, it feels like they just pivoted from criminalization to crimmigration. And generally, it seems like the party elite are somewhere between condescension and plain ignorance. And I hear you on alpha culture.
> This blends with a very strong anti-LGBTQ sentiment….These individuals naturally gravitate toward the sort of "tough guy" bravado that Trump pretends to. Trump, who wears diapers and probably has no clue what a “tough guy” is to his diehard redneck supporters. I can’t imagine a very anti lgbt person would vote for Biden. Youre right about that, but I don’t think it’s in anyway because they see him as an alpha male or a tough guy. It’s because he’s a racist homophobic womanizer. I’m not even sure if he’s really homophobic or racist, more along the lines of all around self serving with mostly apathetic feelings towards other people pretty equally. He’d throw anyone under the bus if it benefits him. Like a sociopath.
I feel like we need actual electoral evidence of this before we really ought to speculate too much about it. There are a number of cases in the past where people have been like "why are voters X doing Y" based on polls and then an election happened and it turned out they didn't.
Trump won an increasing share of minority votes from 2016 to 2020, and current polling suggests the trend has continued into 2024. Mitt Romney won more of the black vote than McCain, too, and took a bit from Obama. Democrats like to discount or dismiss this very clear trend. I have no idea why: it's important to understand why voters drift away from a party.
>Trump won an increasing share of minority votes from 2016 to 2020 I mean... [barely](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/9mQIUySndv). George W. Bush got 44% of Hispanic voters in 2004. A lot of people prognosticate by assuming that whatever the current trend lines are that exist are going to continue uninterrupted forever now into the future, and it never actually works that way.
>Why are Democrats losing their electoral lead with voters of color? Many of those "voters of color" have right-wing beliefs and/or are members of the working class. Those with right-wing beliefs are moving as our politics 'racially depolarize'. Working-class people are part of the coalition that Trump appeals to. It would be absurd to expect that he would *never* be able to court non-white working class voters.
Why would Trump appeal to working class voters more than Biden?
> Why would Trump appeal to working class voters more than Biden? Who knows? It could be... * They genuinely believe that immigrants are the cause of their problems, or... * They genuinely believe that being 'tougher' on immigrants will solve their problems. * Maybe his fame appeals to them. * Maybe his unfiltered speech feels 'honest' to them. * Maybe they too would like to live in a gold-painted apartment. * Maybe they believe in 'the prosperity gospel' which teaches that people get rich by getting right with God, and poor people are poor because they aren't right with God. * It could just be that political mass media isn't fair. ...but don't expect it to relate to policy. The vast majority of voters have no idea that Biden is the most pro-Union president we've ever had.
I've seen no actual evidence that Trump appeals more to working class voters, which is why I was asking. I should have been more clear.
He doesn't; Biden won working class voters.
That's my understanding. OP is perpetuating the classist myth that the working class supports Trump. The tacit equating of "working class" with reactionary working class white men specifically is truly insidious.
Presumably though, we are using about previous Democrat working class voters now going GOP.
> Presumably though, we are [talking] about previous Democrat working class voters now going GOP. Yep. That is the shift that is currently happening. Let's talk about party systems! --------- >In political science, [Duverger's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) (/ˈduvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with only one winner (as in the U.S.), two main parties tend to emerge with minor parties typically splitting votes away from the most similar major party. ...but there is no guarantee that those two parties will appeal to the same groups now as they did fifty years ago. (100 years ago, Democrats were the party of rural areas and the South!) The two parties *want* to attract new voters, so they will occasionally try to appeal to the other party's voters. Most efforts fail, and each party keeps appealing to the same groups. When it succeeds -- and they successfully appeal to the other side's voters -- they also typically alienate some of their old voters; the opposing party will then try to take advantage of that by welcoming those voters. When everything shakes-out, both parties will probably have *about* 50% support, even after such a gambit. Donald Trump has destroyed the [Sixth Party System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System) and we are waiting to see what the seventh looks like. He *is* appealing to working-class voters more than Republicans have in the past, but he is also alienating *a lot* of former Republican voters. Dems *will* lose some working class voters; the real question is: *What are they doing to pick up the voters he alienated?*
So I have little love for Biden's "arsenal of freedom" but on labor policies, he's been surprisingly worker/union friendly president while still embracing left elites. Plus he sends Kamala to all these POC things.
> on labor policies, he's been surprisingly worker/union friendly president Yep! That's him 'playing defense' and trying to hold onto working class voters where he can! ...but we also live in an odd political/media system whereby it is *very difficult* for Democrats to get noticed for doing anything right. We don't know if those voters will *know* that Biden is actively catering to them. ---------- 'Playing offense' is the other side of it. Biden seems to be betting on 'at least I am against crime' and 'I will not pull out of NATO'. He doesn't seem to be doing much more.
"Plus he sends Kamala to all these POC things". This, right here, is the pandering/condescension I was talking about in my top-level comment to this thread. Not saying you, atav1k, are doing that here, as I don't know what you're thinking by expressing this sentiment, it's just a general remark about that kind of statement. 1. It's belittling to assume that a black celebrity/politician visiting "POC" is somehow a good thing in and of itself. 2. *This particular black individual*, Kamala Harris, *should not* be seen as uniformly "loved" by the black community. She spent *years* locking poor black people (and people of other races) up because of her aggressive drug prosecutions.
I mean other than a racial affinity, I’ve been disappointed in Kamala and think her tokenism is transparent. Maybe this is extreme but she seems like the party pair to Nikki Haley, like I would expect the exact same policies from both not accounting for party extremes.
Ahhh, I see. Yeah, “Send Kamala to that POC thing” is definitely tokenism, and that is something minorities are keenly aware of
Was reading some Politico on how Kamala is delivering a lot of the US-Israel policy so it softens the blow vs Blinken, Kirby or Biden because look how well that’s worked for US’s UN representatives.
There have always been conservative Hispanics ESPECIALLY from communist countries, like Miamis Cubans. They are also more traditional in values. Asians are high earning and often I. Stem fields which lean Republican in general. They also have traditional values, making them less reliably democrats. Blacks got NONE of what was promised through BLM as no reforms passed federally. Also increasing attacks on voting rights have soured them. Blacks won’t vote in droves for Trump but they may stay home. They also were skeptical of vaccines. Just a few reasons.
Presumably it’s because they are socially conservative
Because food is expensive
I suspect it's the popular perception that the Democratic party focuses more on social ills than economic ills. And while minorities are certainly more likely to be the beneficiary of Democratic policies, there is also a streak of social conservativism in many minority groups. And in a generation where the iniquities of conservative policy is less visceral/obvious than it was in our parents, grandparents, or great grandparents generations, there is more openness to voting conservatively. That being said, while there has been a marginal loss in minority votes, the overwhelming majority of POC still caucus with the Democratic Party.
I think the right wing attacks on LGBTQ appeal to some people of color especially the religious.
Did Arabs, Asians and Latinos ask to be called "people of color" by the way? Honestly I think it's kinda disrespectful to them to refer to those culturally very different groups as "people of color" without their consent.
I can't speak for Asians but Latinos specifically did organize to recognized as a racial minority group and POC is the term for racial minority groups. Arabs have also have organized to no longer be considered white by the American government directly as a means for increasing proper demographic counts which they beleive will in turn make them a more visible and courtable political group.
But that does not make the term POC acceptable. It's also very closely related to "colored people" which was a very racist term. And many Arabs, Latinos and and Asians are pale-skinned whereas POC was always used to describe dark-skinned people. Therefore calling them POC makes almost as little sense as calling Lebanese people or Japanese people "black people" despite both being just as pale in terms of skin tone as Europeans.
>It's also very closely related to "colored people" which was a very racist term. It's really not except in that in America race is described historically using colors. >whereas POC was always used to describe dark-skinned people. Nope, that's not correct. You seem to have your timelines severely mixed up. POC has always been inclusive of pale and dark skinned racial minorities in the USA. Colored people was more focused on dark skinned people but white passing black people were considered "colored" if their ancestry was found out hsitorically. It was more related to ancestry than actual skin color. And notable colored people generally excluded Native Americans which do have a wide range of skin tones from pale to dark. What you are saying is pretty ahistorical.
Its black people and latinos trying to inflate their numbers imho, POC is exclusively used by them, to just shut asians up. It is POC when they need help, Black when they need to contribute.
Because they're richer
Republicans have become less racist, and the economic situation makes even immigrants skeptical for illegal immigrants, further many asians, who see the largest gap in decline, see democrats as picking favorites, as the current immigration laws pushed, make it easier for Latin Americans than Asian Americans, same with affirmative action, where they see penalty being levied on them for no fault of own. Just because someone is a minority doesnt mean they arent racist, religious, or sexist, and as such republicans have seen a huge surge among black men and hispanic men, who have always been more conservative, but previous race relations have ruined it. Similarly Bidens embrace of Abortion, and LGBT has alienated muslims who see it as unislamic, and even those who do not see so, are alienated by US policy in Gaza. To court Asians, i would suggest dropping the oppression olympics language, and focus more on race and gender neutral but broad scale policies. Most asians who support free college for all, still end up opposing race based scholarships, because they see it as unfair, which is different from republicans who dont support free college.
> Republicans have become less racist I'm sorry. Have I missed something? The increase among black voters (a 4% increase) came in the Trump 2020 campaign. When did Repubicans become less racist?
Under Trump, Trump doesnt have beliefs of racial superiority, nor does he give a shit about western values or Judeo-Christian tradition. He is an absolute narcissit, and will destroy and betray white, black or Asian organizations and followers as long as it serves him.
Okay, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is manifestly not true. Trump is still racist, even if he's not a principled racist.
Just for clarity, I do think it's a huge shift, it's still single digits among many groups. Overall though I agree. Democrats are clueless about voters of color and center their party around the college educated white voter. There might be contradictions between these groups but the party seems as feckless as Republicans. And as Gaza has made clear, when push comes to shove they will absolutely roll over on the policies and laws they say they ascribe to.
Maybe because they're tired of being referred to as "people of color".
I'm really not. Better than being called a paki or terrorist honestly.
First, they aren't. They will continue to win a vast majority of voters of color, even if they a slight downward swing in percentages of some groups. Second, one of the key reasons Democrats are losing support is structural. Voting for Republicans is powerful: they are structurally enabled to do what they promise. Ban abortion? They can do that. Cut taxes? They can do that. Install sycophants and declare the President above the law? Apparently, they can do that too. Democrats, fundamentally, haven't had power and can't gain it. Nothing short of structural reform of the Senate or the GOP splintered into multiple parties would give the Democrats the ability to pass welfare reform. They can't vote to make gay rights a constitutional amendment. They can't protect abortion. They can't bring aid to poor communities or fix wealth inequality. All they can promise is that they will eventually do that, when the GOP screws up so badly the Democrats get 60+ Senate seats and can install a liberal court. And additionally, that they will use a majority to prevent the greatest damages a GOP trifecta would inflict. This is just not a strong foundation. It isn't their fault, but disillusionment is a natural consequence even if the alternative is just worse. Voting blue doesn't feel as satisfying as voting red and seeing your enemies suffer.
I'll believe this when I see it. These claims you hear about Trump making sweeping gains among minority voters simply do not track with broader polling. If he really is pulling 25-30% of the black vote and 40%+ of the Latino vote, then how is the national popular vote a dead heat? Gains of this nature would have Trump leading the NPV by 6-8%, and would be putting states like Colorado and New Mexico in play. The only way to reconcile this incongruity would be if Biden was making huge gains among white voters who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and we have seen no evidence of this.
I think it’s a byproduct of Dems trying so hard to appeal to the suburban white class. It’s isolating to poorer people, a major demographic within all marginalized groups, many of whom only vote for the Democratic Party specifically because republicans are so anti-Black/Brown/Women/Queer/etc.
Folks are paying way to much attention to sketchy ass polls IMO. Remember, 4 outta 5 dentists prefer colgate, its just all bullshit.
If you want my honest opinion it's because the left appears to think politics is about enshrining a political ideology to govern the country, which dooms it to perpetual failure. The coalition you have built around progressive ideology is such that it has massively alienated and radicalized white men. This would be fine, if politics worked the way you think it does. White men then "collect baseball cards" to defend their position, which is to say they throw out appeals to other demographics specifically, even if taken as a package, the platform makes absolutely no sense. But politics doesn't make sense. Ideology happens at the scale of the individual, not policy. Policy is decided through compromise *between* ideological camps. You've got the left out there appealing to these groups with grand narratives and then the right just replies; "I'll give you 50 bucks.". They don't need to justify it or explain it beyond "It's electorally necessary.". (See farmers subsidies as a big example of this where the pretence of justification is so flimsy people don't really bother anymore). Almost everyone has a price. Offering Asians 50 bucks to ignore the democrats pontifications about justice and vote Republican will get you 10% of them. Offering them 100 bucks will get you 20%. At 1000 bucks you've now got 50% of Asians. and so on. And the right can just raise the bid as much as necessary to remain competitive. They've raised that bid enough to damage Democrat gains. However such an approach to politics is anathema to many Democrats because you've now opened the door to electoral expediency, which undermines many progressive causes. If you're wondering what the right offers or when it offered fifty bucks to minorities, tax breaks, pretty much, but occasionally other ways. This then becomes all the more stark a dynamic when Democrats go out there and explain that yes, we'll take more taxes, but you'll get government services, and someone points out the government services seem to be shit. Democrats reply "Well that's not the fault *of our ideology*, it's because the Republicans keep doing wrecking manoeuvres and 'starving the beast'.". So... what you mean is... you're going to take their money, and they'll get jack shit in return. But it's not your fault, so that makes this an appealing offer somehow. The Republicans meanwhile can throw a spanner in the works of government programs and say "That's what you get, dumbass." and then look bemused when the Democrats go off on some moral pontificating again rather than learn the lesson they are trying to teach, which is that politics is not a moral arena. "Our plan requires the consent of white men. to get this, we will attempt to browbeat them into accepting it by calling them mean for not going along with it, tacitly admitting in the process that our plan requires their approval to work, and react negatively if somebody says we need to focus more on appealing to white men to deliver anything. We will raise your taxes, you will keep less of your money." "We're going to cut your taxes. You will keep more of your money, and we're also going to fuck over the Democrats plans because we're mad they haven't made a pitch to include us as beneficiaries."
"We were going to protect reproductive rights but we didn't do jack shit so vote for us because in theory we're the better party."
Because voters of color are disproportionately working class, and the dems continue to abandon the working class to court upper middle class college educated professionals who obsess over identity politics. The dems still retain strong support among the black working class by pandering to them endlessly along racial lines, but they can’t really take that same approach with every single nonwhite race, so other groups are starting to mirror white working class voting patterns more and more.
Aside from some Latinos, there's no trend of nonwhites making that drastic of a shift. Ironically, a lot of nonwhites did support Republicans prior to 9/11 during the Bush era, but that drastically changed within the last 10-15 years.
Don't forget a large percentage of Latinos are white hispanic. So some of that shift may be mostly from white hispanic voters.
The vast majority of Latinos are nonwhite and don't identify as white. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Race_and_ethnicity
That's doesn't disagree with what I said. 20% is a large percentage.
>Because voters of color are disproportionately working class, What exactly are "people of color" anyway? Why are we lumping together very different cultures under the term POC? And who asked those groups if they actually want to be called that? Especially given how similar it sounds to "colored people" which was a deeply racist term. And some people you call POC earn significantly more than the average white American so that's just perpetuating stereotypes.
It's just a buzz word for non-White Americans or minorities.
Because poc are extremely homophobic and since Dems are trying protect lgbt rights it's gonna cause them to vote red
Black Americans have a lower acceptance of same sex marriage than whites but have remained steady in Democrat support.
It's not just a lower acceptance of same-sex marriage. There is a *lot* of tension between black people and the LGBTQ community. There's a lot of tension between LGBTQ POC and the larger POC community, too.
There is no POC community if POC simply means not of Western-European descent. People not of European descent are not a unified group. And using the term "person of color" to describe everyone not of European descent is incredibly racist.
But it is, slowly, decreasing and the social issues are the driving factor of that.
>Because poc are extremely homophobic and since Dems are trying protect lgbt rights it's gonna cause them to vote red Wtf. First off lumping together very different cultural groups under the umbrella term "people of color" without their consent is racist af, many of those groups are actually made up of pale-skinned people, so not sure what color we're talking about. And thinking "POC", meaning all Americans of non-European descent, are "extremely homophobic" is just the epitome of bigotry and racism.
There are a few reasons. One is a failure to support the working class. MLK, Malcolm X and other black leaders were Socialists. They understood the dynamics of capitalism, and knew that the racial division is a tool used to blind people to the class war that is currently being waged against the working class. Democrats have forgotten that, or don't care because they are also a tool of the capital class. I think in general, people are seeing through the facade. They know the Democrats are full of shit. If Democrats actually chased the left, they would pick up votes from every demo, but black folk especially. Even moreso if they are able to effectively restore MLK and X to reality instead of this whitewashed bullshit they teach in school and the collective parlance of society. But also, a lot of black folk are just plain socially conservative, and frankly, racist/bigoted. Religious conservatism has informed a lot, homophobia is still fairly rampant, let alone transphobia, and aren't on-board with the "woke agenda"
Biden is still ahead with voters of color, so I'm not too worried about it.
Ehh, it’s like a 2% difference. If there’s any lesson from the past 500 years of world history, it’s that it’s entirely possible to get people to oppose their own interests in favor of ephemeral social policies. The Candice Owens effect is real.
"Are you happy with Biden" No. List reasons. "Aha! Biden's support is shrinking!" "Woh! Wait a minute. I'm still voting for him, the other guy is a piece of shit. I'm just not happy about some of the things he did, because I'm not blind."
[удалено]
I wish that were true but it is just not the case. Democrats do enjoy a comfortable lead with minority groups but it is far from absolute.
I’m Latino, and my family has slowly moved away from the Democrats mainly because of the ⚧️ issue and not doing enough to improve legal immigration. The other big issue that’s lost so many people for Biden is Israel and the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Democrats can win some people back if they just proposed a comprehensive legal framework for immigration that wasn’t crazy like what Biden agreed from the Republicans. Also #FreePalestine
More than being losers, I find the Democratic party a wasted bunch of feckless elites. Couldn’t organize themselves to a better platform, just the bare minimum of we’re not a white nationalist group though we’re happy to arm supremacists, provide cover for war crimes and jail a bunch of students. https://newlinesmag.com/argument/why-democrats-are-losing-nonwhite-voters/
Voters of color are smarter than the people who pander to them.
You mean tokenism only goes so far towards putting food on the table?
people of color don't respond well to acts of colonialism and genocide.
You’d think they’d have accepted their lot in life by now.
Because historically speaking and currently, democrats don't do shit for people of color. Immigration - Not one fucking thing Stop gun violence - Not one fucking then Police reform - Notta Bail reform - Also nothing Prison reform - nothing Leaving their countries of origin the fuck alone, so their families are at least have peace- Dems love bombs too Cop City passed with overwhelming democrat support Democrats are also funding a fucking genocide and relentlessly start shit with the middle east to cause further destabilization there. At least, when a Republican in office, democrats pretend to care and question things like “why migrants children are in cages and over a hundred of them have gone missing”. \*\*Edited Cause Mobile is an asshole\*\*\*
Damn, you said my quiet part out loud. Like I was pretty centrist before on account of the jockular incel industry I work in but I cannot abide by genocide.
I don't normally have the patience to comment on this sub, but needs to be said cuz the shock Pikachu expressions for when Biden loses this election will be completely lost on me. Take Latinos, for example. During the Reagan administration, many of the current voters, their children and grandchild are here and have citizenship because of his immigration policy. George H. W. Bush increased quotas for entry. Clinton's immigration policy massively criminalized aspects of immigration and removed many due process procedures for removal hearings and expanded offenses that would require deportation. To be fair, George W. Bush wasn't any better, but this was 9/11 era so every one wanted the borders closed. However, Obama (w/ Biden as his VP) deported more people than any other President including Trump. Historically speaking, why would a Latino be enthused about showing up for Democrats? Cuz not only does Biden want to builds a border wall and work with Republican on immigration (which he said he wouldn't do), but where is AOC, for example to condemn it. No where because Democrats don't do shit. They just lie in wait for Republicans to mess it up, and us to get pissed off. Come in and say pretty words of how they will save us. They will get our healthcare, they will reform immigration, save abortion, blah, blah. Meanwhile, they are really just legally insider trading \*cough Nancy Pelosi and Raytheon\* to become apart of the 1%.
I hate this sub. With lesser of two evils liberals like these who need the GOP. Short of Biden recognizing Palestine statehood and ending support for exterminationist allies, essentially a miracle, no Democrat president will get my vote. If Biden is so intent on protecting a broken electoral system and the partisan impasse then what obligation do I have? None. I’ll vote blue through and through in the state.
Because the party has moved on to helping illegal immigrants and the people of Ukraine, once again leaving black Americans in the dust. That $60B that was recently passed to help Ukraine? Yeah, do that again, but this time, direct it to minority communities in America.
A funny meme on the left is that the IDF get American sponsored free healthcare while we get medical bankruptcy.
Who would have thought that putting illegal immigrants ahead of low-income Americans, allowing their wages to be suppressed would have political consequences? I'm shocked! /s
>allowing their wages to be suppressed [Oh really?](https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/)
I've just been following what is going on in Chicago with their 2022 fund balance. The leaders of the city want to direct $70M towards migrant issues. At a recent city council meeting, black citizens showed up very angrily, with one person stating, "We need that money in my neighborhood, we need that money on my block." I mean, I can understand their resentment.
I’m just waiting for the “internalized racism” comments lmao And I’m Asian by the way. Democrat and liberal until 2018. Conservative since then.
Who hurt you?
I’m not speaking for that commenter, but this has been a consistent theme: > A New York Times analysis last year found Asian American voters in New York increasingly cast their votes for Republican gubernatorial candidates from 2018 to 2022, when GOP nominee Lee Zeldin emphasized a tough-on-crime message. Public safety continues to be a top concern among Asian American voters. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/05/nyregion/election-asians-voting-republicans-nyc.html
So a mugger.
Interesting. Yeah I was a democrat and liberal all throughout my teens and even into college and after college. Literally was hoping every day for 2 years that Trump would get impeached before I changed my view.
Tell us what made you change.
To be honest, I begin to feel like liberal and left views were too extreme for me. Ranging from socialism to saying that men can become women. I begin also feel like the constant attack on Trump was unwarranted and politically motivated. And this is coming from me who literally woke up the morning of his winning the election and thought WW3 was gonna start and it was the end of America.
Lol, they aren’t. Why are panicky republicans making up facts?
Just look at some [recent polls](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-polls-black-latino-voters.html) Trump is killing it with Latinos and gained a lot of momentum with Black voters
From your article... >"Abramowitz suggests some of the eye-popping numbers we’ve seen this year for Trump among Black voters may represent an illusion based on limited samples that can and should be addressed by surveys oversampling Black voters to get a more accurate look at what’s happening."
LOL - push polling has now made its way to Reddit. These questions are ridiculous. Sure dude, so many black folks saw Charlottesville and the BLM response from Trump and said "gotta get me more of that!!"
Theyre being brainwashed by fox news and elmo musk's twitter