That could possibly be because as a party they're actively hostile to working-class whites. You know, those people they're prone to refer to as "crackers" or "racists," that sort of thing.
After two years of warnings about Republicans’ woeful performance among nonwhite voters in 2012, the midterms showed that Democrats have their own significant demographic vulnerability: working-class white voters. Republicans won white voters without a college degree by 30 points, 64 percent to 34 percent, according to exit polls, equal to their margin in the wave election of 2010. Polling data show that support for President Barack Obama among working-class whites has dropped 8 points since 2010.
They're happy as clams in chowder to be pulling 96 percent of 12 percent of the population. They don't need the votes of any damned racists.
A new and potentially more popular steward of the Democratic Party — most notably,
Hillary Clinton... sometimes described as the Smartest Woman in the World and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as
Another Edward Livingstone...
— might boost those numbers. But some say the party needs to embrace economic populism after an administration that has prioritized the Affordable Care Act and the environment over a platform focused on wages and other “pocketbook” issues.
They might also think real hard about not calling them "racists" at the drop of a red-green-and-black hat.
“Democrats have chosen to focus on issues that the liberal base of the party really likes, but the working-class person in West Virginia or Arkansas or Louisiana or Alaska doesn’t necessarily identify with,” said political analyst Charlie Cook.
It may be that the working class folk have more on their minds than race. They may not even like Communists.
Cook pointed to those four states — where Republicans captured Democratic-held Senate seats this year — to argue that Democrats are a “marginalized party” across much of the country.
Who needs a bunch of racists that probably haven't even been to college?
“This is more than just a bad year for Democrats,” he said. “The challenge that the Democratic Party has in parts of the country appears to be even more formidable than it was two years ago.”
Things will likely get worse now that it's open season on whites. Anyone for a game of Knockout?
Added former Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.): “Democrats really gave up on small towns and exurban America.”
Yeah. They should check their privilege.
And even though Republicans have yet to make significant inroads among minorities, the GOP could make up for those losses by further enhancing its performance among white voters.
It shouldn't be too hard to do. Whites aren't good enough for the Dems unless they're worth seven digits or better.
“Given what’s happening with working-class voters and how disenchanted they are with the Democratic Party … Republicans still have a chance to win the presidency without [making] significant changes to policy,” said GOP consultant Ford O’Connell.
Stick to Republican principles and they'll do okay.
Democrats won’t necessarily be able to count on the same level of minority turnout in 2016 without Obama. At the same time, Mitt Romney in 2012 won a larger share of the white vote than any GOP nominee since George H.W. Bush and still lost the presidency.
Requiring voter ID might cut the number of precincts turning out better than 100 percent. It's racist, of course...
