Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

White men shun Democrats

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

White men shun Democrats


www.timesunion.com

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
White male voters were key to the 1994 landslide GOP victory, they will be again this year. Men in general have been the big loosers since Obama came to office. Most of the jobs lost have been men (7 out of 10 jobs lost were men), men have been hardest hit economically and have received the least help.

The Obama led Democrats were quick to go the the aid of big industry, big banking and health care reform to aid the poor, but where were the serious job programs for the middle class males?

Obama's style liberalism is exactly the style that drives white males away:

Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.


The media and Democrats will jump to call them "angry white men" as they did in '94.


Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.








www.timesunion.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 





Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994


"Could" is a big word.

I think we should all follow them.
The white men after all know everything.

The privileged and lucky bas tards.

Way to rally the women and the blacks!
Merci beau coups!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
White men should probably have a long inward look at what really is bothering them. Because it was a white man who got us into the Iraq and Afghanistan war, it was white men who owned those banks that got bailed out. It was a white man who signed NAFTA (Bill Clinton). I could go on and on, but I don't have too. These guys who perceive that Obama is leaving them out or not making things right for them might have it wrong. Maybe just maybe what is happening is that they are seeing what a country is when everyone is considered being taken care off and not just one type of person is on top all the time. Some of them are mad because they feel they are becoming irrelevant to the power structure.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


I will vote no more forever. Everytime I vote I get put on jury duty which runs longer and longer. I'm not passing through some fuggin' metal detector, scanner repeatedly.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by plumranch
 





Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994


"Could" is a big word.

I think we should all follow them.
The white men after all know everything.

The privileged and lucky bas tards.

Way to rally the women and the blacks!
Merci beau coups!


Ask any "real" black person who knows anything about politics, and they will tell you that republican is the real way to vote. The only reason they voted for Obama is because McCain wasn't any better. Unfortunately, a lot of blacks (and even whites) voted for Obama because he has dark skin.

And did you know that 8 million more women voted for obama than men?

So yea, it will depend on the white male, STATISTICALLY speaking.

Republicans may come as more corrupt and deviant, but they build a stronger standing for this country than the Democrats, who are continuing to show their disrespect for PRIDE for the country and LOYALTY to the majority.

I'm not saying I prefer Republicans over the Democrats, they are both really twisted, but Republicans offer a better chance for the continuation of a dominant America.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Haha! That was an intersting perpective! Is it really so?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Unfortunately, this article decided to take what could have been a mere statistical approach and instead decided to make it a racist movement.

Keep in mind, that in 1994 there was no racist movement, no black President to oust, no black candidate that was barred for being black.

This is a war between Democrats and Republicans, not black versus white.

The only reason that race plays into it at all, is because the majority of black voters stick with the democratic party no matter what, but white men have a larger tendency to switch parties and vote based on current situations.

This is not to say that one is right and the other wrong, but rather this is a statistical fact and not because of racism.

The simple fact that this happened in '94 -- when there was nothing at stake to be considered racist -- is further proof that by it happening again, the motivation is not racism against Obama.

The only people that are making this a racist situation is those that think we can not be opposed to Obama's policies, which is what the election will represent if it swings heavily Republican, without insisting we have racial motivations.

How quickly you forget it was those same white men that voted Obama in in the first place.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Anti-Bush hysteria, (and a good dose of white guilt), put Obama in office.

As a black man, it is a fallacy that all of us supported this charlatan.

"The man is still 'the man' regardless of color."As they say on the streets.

I expect a hair-straightening and gradual skin-tone lightening as his popularity drops. Then the next brother that wins the POTUS election can claim being the first full blooded black to hold the office....maybe Michael Steele,eh?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 





Men in general have been the big loosers since Obama came to office.



Plumranch, in my opinion, white men have taken a back seat to all special interest groups since women libbers castrated them.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SirPsychoSexy
 





I'm not saying I prefer Republicans over the Democrats, they are both really twisted, but Republicans offer a better chance for the continuation of a dominant America.


You are not looking at cause and effect and how synergy plays into the equation of helping people. On the surface your argument if you are defending Republicans and far right conservatives appears sound, mathematical, logical but when you add human fallibility, extenuating circumstances, individual factors and measure extraneous influences, possibilities and likelihoods, all those unplanned events and consequences- you will discover what appears cut and dry or simple is not that way.

Republicans appear to be for "right" thinking and family values.
They are so far from this.

They are part of a child molesting Satanic cult if you believe a former Boystown resident who won a million dollar lawsuit against them. (See "senate page scandal" and the Franklin Coverup)

I guess I am alone finding this damning evidence of corruption on a scale unmatched by any other political party.

I do not respect any party whose political platform is to the earth policy institute a recipe for global disaster. Earth policy advocates population control, conservation of resources, conservation of fossil fuels and eliminating global poverty to SAVE THE EARTH - all policies in direct opposition to Sarah Palin, and her ILK- the Republicans, which I have taken to calling the Repub-tilian party.

I respect no party that for 8 years denied women equal pay for equal work.

Maybe at one time the Republican party was for fiscal responsibility and common sense ideas but they have been hi-jacked, co-opted by corporate interests and unscrupulous rogues and profiteers of all sorts.

They won't tell you outright but they think a human life is worth about $250Gs. If they were at deaths door themselves I wonder what they would pay to live?

There are some actions I think clearly revealing to your agenda. Republicans talk the tuff, patriotic American talk, because they know that sells like fried catfish.
Meanwhile their own members are in denial and refuse to see this is little more than a front group set up to preserve and protect the elite, the mega rich.
They have purchased Rupert Murdoch as a vehicle for their campaign to stay the powerful, wealthy and controlling forces they are.

They are protecting the interests of corrupt and exiled European royalty (colonialist's) now calling themselves the "Heritage Foundation" families, (keeping it in the family alright)... as well as mega big businesses, (good-by mom and pop store
) big pharma, big insurance and especially black budget defense contractors.

So much for mom's apple pie.






[edit on 28-3-2010 by rusethorcain]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Plus,


In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Read more: www.timesunion.com...


I thought this was interesting.

You know I have a huge opinion on this topic, but perhaps a little humility and appreciation on Obama's part, and a little less screaming racism would have taken him further, in the eyes of the white male,

Regardless whether they voted for him or against him, they all get lumped into the same "angry white man" category.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Amazingly racist piece here.

Blame the white males! Oh, it is worded carefully, and it even appears to lend some sympathy to them, but it is just a facade. The idea here is the same we have seem over and over again with Obama; make those who dissent feel racist. In this case, why, if you don't like the way things are going, you're going to be joining those "evil white men" and be racist and sexist just like they are!

Disgusting.

It has nothing to do with the race of these men. At least, not on THEIR end. It has to do with the fact that middle class males are the ones getting the shaft in all these "fairness" initiatives. Do you see employers with "middleclass white male" quotas to fill, for diversity? Do you see anyone caring if a white guy accomplishes something? If he does, he is often just labeled as "the evil rich white man."

More disgusting are all the people who lap this up. Freedom and equality means that we are all free to earn our own way, and ANY laws or initiatives that hold one race or gender above another are discrimination. It becomes an issue now, as in '94, (and even more so than '94, from what I have seen in my area,) because the "safe" fires/layoffs come first...aka, white males, because they can't fire back with a discrimination lawsuit.

What I wish people could see is that all these initiatives that rob people of freedom, of dignity, of even HOPE, will never end well. In fact, I dare say, if you look at history, these actions ALWAYS end the same; with a lot of people dead. Is "progressiveness" worth that? What makes freedom so precious is that, if you have true freedom in your life, there is no one to blame but yourself if you fail.

If it takes middleclass white men to bring back true freedom, then I say, "Bring them on!"*

*For the racists out there, you should know that I am neither middleclass nor even white, technically. What I am is a believer in freedom, and right now, the voice of freedom is in the voice of the oppressed...middleclass white men.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 





Blame the white males! Oh, it is worded carefully, and it even appears to lend some sympathy to them, but it is just a facade. The idea here is the same we have seem over and over again with Obama; make those who dissent feel racist.


You know I didn't think about that, but I do think much of the reason for the white male migration away from the democratic party is this very issue.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
White men should probably have a long inward look at what really is bothering them. Because it was a white man who got us into the Iraq and Afghanistan war, it was white men who owned those banks that got bailed out. It was a white man who signed NAFTA (Bill Clinton). I could go on and on, but I don't have too. These guys who perceive that Obama is leaving them out or not making things right for them might have it wrong. Maybe just maybe what is happening is that they are seeing what a country is when everyone is considered being taken care off and not just one type of person is on top all the time. Some of them are mad because they feel they are becoming irrelevant to the power structure.


Will you spare the white guilt BS. I think we all feel guilty enough after spending all those years in history class in high school and junior high.. And people wonder why white men tend to sh*ootup schools.

Maybe blacks, Latinos, Asians should have a long inward look at themselves for once. For example, black on white murders are 900% higher than white on black murders. CNN wouldn't have you believe that though, as that would be racist to show a story about a black murdering anyone now wouldn't it?

Here are just a few cases that were never reported on any national news station:

1. Kurt Husted. 39. Armored car driver for Loomis. Kurt was shot point blank in the head while exiting the back of Walmart in Lakewood, Washington. This occured in the Summer of 2009 just 3 miles from the coffee shop where 4 Lakewood officers were murdered.
When the assailants got the bag of cash the first stop was Red Lobster restaurant in Tacoma where they proceeded to stuff their faces.
Come to find out a black female who worked in Administration at Walmart had inside information as to when the Loomis driver would arrive. She then tipped off her co-conspirators to the time the driver would arrive.

2. James Paroline. 60.
James Paroline was a Vietnam Vet and was beaten to death by Brian Keith, 28 while watering grass in the turnstyle next to his home.

3. Darrell Johnson. 69. Elderly and handicapped. Darrell was beaten to death by a black while out walking with his cane due to his hip replacement surgery. His face was badly kicked and head stomped on the sidewalk where he was left for dead.

4. Edward McMicheal. 53. Handicapped. Known as the "tuba man" . He played outside of Safeco Field in Seattle and was loved by many. One night Edward was jumped and brutally kicked and stomped and left for dead.
THESE 3 BLACK PEOPLE ONLY RECEIVED 72 WEEKS IN JUVINILE FOR TAKING THIS MANS LIFE.

5. Kristopher Kime. Seattle. Kris was struck from behind with a bottle over the head while coming to the rescue of a white woman who was being pummeled by a group of blacks. After he was on the ground he was head stomped and kicked in the face. HIS MURDERER ONLY RECEIVED 10 YEARS FOR THIS CRIME WHICH WAS REDUCED FROM 15 YEARS, AND MAY BE REDUCED AGAIN FOR "GOOD BEHAVIOR"


[edit on 28-3-2010 by sliceNodice]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
White men should probably have a long inward look at what really is bothering them. Because it was a white man who got us into the Iraq and Afghanistan war, it was white men who owned those banks that got bailed out. It was a white man who signed NAFTA (Bill Clinton). I could go on and on, but I don't have too. These guys who perceive that Obama is leaving them out or not making things right for them might have it wrong. Maybe just maybe what is happening is that they are seeing what a country is when everyone is considered being taken care off and not just one type of person is on top all the time. Some of them are mad because they feel they are becoming irrelevant to the power structure.


blame it on the white people...

this article wasn't implying that white people are voting for republicans because a black man is in office.

Didn't you read it said they were the ones who voted a black man in office in the first place?

I can't stand people like you who try to turn everything into racial tensions, Obama sucks as president, take it how it is! That is why the crackers you hate so much don't want him in office anymore.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Clark Savage Jr.
 





Anti-Bush hysteria, (and a good dose of white guilt), put Obama in office.


Perhaps a combination but this author says the poles point to economic reasons.


Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.
Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling.


I remember watching CNBC right before Obama got the nomination. There was a gigantic short or put that came into the New York Exchange from Europe. "the largest ever", the anouncers said. That day the the market went down the limit, stops had to be put in and everyone was scared. It was obviously orchestrated by someone like George Soros, a huge fan of Obama's with economic clout. The blame went to Bush and the rest was history.

Reply to Saturnine_sweet:

Yes, it looks racist on the surface but it's just an examination of one (very important in this case) political group. We're not examining the political motivations of angry white women or middle class blacks or hispanics we're looking at average white men.

Obama overlooked their concerns, they rightfully feel slighted and the Democrats are going to pay the price, all Democrats.


Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.
Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009.


So for some reason, women have remained steady through all this, but not the group affected most, white males.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 






I can't stand people like you who try to turn everything into racial tensions, Obama sucks as president, take it how it is! That is why the crackers you hate so much don't want him in office anymore.


I still believe there is underling tension, not racism, but the fact after voting for Obama the MSM and democratic party use it continually.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 





So for some reason, women have remained steady through all this, but not the group affected most, white males.


OH, really?

Yup, that figures.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Doh! Well, here it comes. The ninnies that claim this PROVES that we are nothing but a bunch of racists and bigots should come pouring into this one!
First it will be the non-sequiturs, the ad hoc, ergo propter hocs, the red herrings, then the straw men. Once they are derided for their fallacious arguments they will employ the dreaded ad hominem! This is so predictable. Please excuse me while I go get some popcorn and a beer and wait for the show begin.






top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join