is there a possibility that minorities turn against the white liberals

[freepcrusher]

I've believed for awhile that the democratic coalition is sitting on top of a volcano ready to erupt. My evidence for this happening is looking at parts of the country where this is already underway. In chicago for example the black community has turned hard against Emmanuel, calling him the "murder mayor" and such. New York is probably in the advanced stages of this with the Ocean Hill-Brownsville incident in the late sixties, the Bloomberg/BDB schism (Bloomberg would be a dem anywhere else) and the, until recently, Cuomo/WFP schism.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Never]

The Democratic party's coalition could very well fracture. The party currently maintains the support of all major ethnic groups, but it could be difficult to hold that support in the future if the interests of those groups does not align with white liberals. Even though you referred to examples of infighting within the Democratic party, it's also possible that Republicans could begin interfering to make this kind of fracture come to fruition.

[IceSpear]

Bill de Blasio is a white liberal, but he's evidence that minorities are turning against white liberals?

[Sol]

I think it's much more likely for most white liberals to turn against minorities.

Courting Upper/Middle class Democrats is the way forward for the GOP, not appealing to minorities.

[Citizen Hats]

I think it's much more likely for most white liberals to turn against minorities.

Courting Upper/Middle class Democrats is the way forward for the GOP, not appealing to minorities.

Indeed. The more affluent, strictly speaking 'Liberals' of the country are a large block of people who were a natural constituency until the party went off the rockers in the mid 1990s

[DC Al Fine]

I imagine they already would have if America had the Westminster system.

That said, the most likely scenario is white liberals turning on minorities rather than the other way around. Suppose poorer minorities gain more control of the Dems and start pushing for more leftist policies. That could easily send white liberals/Asians into the arms of a more moderate GOP.

[Horus]

Most of the minorities I know who are upset with the Democrats are coming from the left with their objections.

In the next few decades I believe we will continue to lose the white working class (WV will become 80-85% GOP), lose a few minorities, and make more gains among the upper class.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

That said, the most likely scenario is white liberals turning on minorities rather than the other way around. Suppose poorer minorities gain more control of the Dems and start pushing for more leftist policies. That could easily send white liberals/Asians into the arms of a more moderate GOP.

Came here to say more or less exactly this. Especially with whites shrinking as a percentage of the American population, a greater degree of racial polarization in politics is definitely foreseeable in the near-ish future.

[Never]

That said, the most likely scenario is white liberals turning on minorities rather than the other way around. Suppose poorer minorities gain more control of the Dems and start pushing for more leftist policies. That could easily send white liberals/Asians into the arms of a more moderate GOP.

Came here to say more or less exactly this. Especially with whites shrinking as a percentage of the American population, a greater degree of racial polarization in politics is definitely foreseeable in the near-ish future.

There are issues like taxation and education policy that the GOP could make inroads with Asians on.

[Kevin]

I imagine they already would have if America had the Westminster system.

That said, the most likely scenario is white liberals turning on minorities rather than the other way around. Suppose poorer minorities gain more control of the Dems and start pushing for more leftist policies. That could easily send white liberals/Asians into the arms of a more moderate GOP.

That could happen imo,

However at this time I think it's more likely for the Democratic coalition to collapse like the GOP one did after Bush's reelection in 2004. I think this already starting to happen since Obama is starting to lose the trust of voters as a whole combined with the Democrats having trouble turning out minority voters this year.

[Del Tachi]

The only thing throwing a kink in this scenario is that white liberals probably have a lot more staying-power in the Democratic Party because they form the party's fundraising base.  Remember the golden rule:  he with all of the gold makes all of the rules. 

[Rockefeller GOP]

Most of the minorities I know who are upset with the Democrats are coming from the left with their objections.

In the next few decades I believe we will continue to lose the white working class (WV will become 80-85% GOP), lose a few minorities, and make more gains among the upper class.

You could be right, but I see the opposite happening if the GOP moderates on social issues, which I believe it will.  I see Republicans losing ground with White working class voters if fiscal issues are more prominent and gaining ground back in the moderate suburban vote.

[Sol]

Of course, the 'white liberals' who I imagine would turn against the Dems are not the DailyKos/Atlas Forum types- it's more like steadily Democratic voters in a lot of the Northeast and Midwest.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2004 was the last time the latino vote and black vote had fractured due to 911. Reagan also fractured the African immigrant vote and Latino vote. Arabs and Asians are a different story, due to the heavy immigrants. Due to demographics Blks and Latinos are becoming americanized and vote on union issues.

[bedstuy]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

[Non Swing Voter]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

How is lumping rural whites and blacks that are conservative together at all offensive.  People on this website are so PC it's offensive.  First of all, you have to write off winning certain groups to appeal to others.  My point stands and I'm not going to be bullied by the PC police like you.  The Democratic party should focus on suburban minorities and whites and for the most part should write off rural areas in terms of targetting. 

Also, if anything, you presuming that rural or less educated = "dumb" to use your own words then you are actually the disturbingly offensive one.

[bedstuy]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

How is lumping rural whites and blacks that are conservative together at all offensive.  People on this website are so PC it's offensive.  First of all, you have to write off winning certain groups to appeal to others.  My point stands and I'm not going to be bullied by the PC police like you.  The Democratic party should focus on suburban minorities and whites and for the most part should write off rural areas in terms of targetting. 

Also, if anything, you presuming that rural or less educated = "dumb" to use your own words then you are actually the disturbingly offensive one.

Statistically, black conservatives virtually do not exist.  There are black people with traditional Christian beliefs and issues like homophobia and hostility towards minorities.  There are hardly any black people who are politically conservative and vote Republican. 

And, I don't think you understood me.  Targeting usually refers to campaign activities like phone-calling, door knocking, TV ads, direct mail, etc.  I think that's a tactical thing and, sure, we shouldn't be spending money trying to target voters who won't vote for Democrats.  If that's what you mean, I don't have a problem.

But, there's tactics, on one hand, and there's messaging and strategic thinking.  In those terms,  it's ridiculous to say, we don't care about "XYZ group."  It's also ridiculous to say that black people or rural voters have needs and values that are at odds with Democratic Party values.

[Non Swing Voter]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

How is lumping rural whites and blacks that are conservative together at all offensive.  People on this website are so PC it's offensive.  First of all, you have to write off winning certain groups to appeal to others.  My point stands and I'm not going to be bullied by the PC police like you.  The Democratic party should focus on suburban minorities and whites and for the most part should write off rural areas in terms of targetting. 

Also, if anything, you presuming that rural or less educated = "dumb" to use your own words then you are actually the disturbingly offensive one.

Statistically, black conservatives virtually do not exist.  There are black people with traditional Christian beliefs and issues like homophobia and hostility towards minorities.  There are hardly any black people who are politically conservative and vote Republican. 

And, I don't think you understood me.  Targeting usually refers to campaign activities like phone-calling, door knocking, TV ads, direct mail, etc.  I think that's a tactical thing and, sure, we shouldn't be spending money trying to target voters who won't vote for Democrats.  If that's what you mean, I don't have a problem.

But, there's tactics, on one hand, and there's messaging and strategic thinking.  In those terms,  it's ridiculous to say, we don't care about "XYZ group."  It's also ridiculous to say that black people or rural voters have needs and values that are at odds with Democratic Party values.

You keep saying, it's "ridiculous to say" and then say something I never even said in the first place.  Perhaps you are just at odds with your own assumptions rather than anything that has actually been presented.  Might want to reflect on that.

Additionally, when I was discussing rural whites and blacks I was definitely thinking about issues like gay marriage, so obviously they are "conservative" on those issues, which are at odds with the democratic party.  Indeed, both groups (rural whites and rural blacks) are shown in poll after poll to be less supportive of gay marriage than the average American.

[bedstuy]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

How is lumping rural whites and blacks that are conservative together at all offensive.  People on this website are so PC it's offensive.  First of all, you have to write off winning certain groups to appeal to others.  My point stands and I'm not going to be bullied by the PC police like you.  The Democratic party should focus on suburban minorities and whites and for the most part should write off rural areas in terms of targetting. 

Also, if anything, you presuming that rural or less educated = "dumb" to use your own words then you are actually the disturbingly offensive one.

Statistically, black conservatives virtually do not exist.  There are black people with traditional Christian beliefs and issues like homophobia and hostility towards minorities.  There are hardly any black people who are politically conservative and vote Republican. 

And, I don't think you understood me.  Targeting usually refers to campaign activities like phone-calling, door knocking, TV ads, direct mail, etc.  I think that's a tactical thing and, sure, we shouldn't be spending money trying to target voters who won't vote for Democrats.  If that's what you mean, I don't have a problem.

But, there's tactics, on one hand, and there's messaging and strategic thinking.  In those terms,  it's ridiculous to say, we don't care about "XYZ group."  It's also ridiculous to say that black people or rural voters have needs and values that are at odds with Democratic Party values.

You keep saying, it's "ridiculous to say" and then say something I never even said in the first place.  Perhaps you are just at odds with your own assumptions rather than anything that has actually been presented.  Might want to reflect on that.

Additionally, when I was discussing rural whites and blacks I was definitely thinking about issues like gay marriage, so obviously they are "conservative" on those issues, which are at odds with the democratic party.  Indeed, both groups (rural whites and rural blacks) are shown in poll after poll to be less supportive of gay marriage than the average American.

Gay marriage  is an important issue for me too and I agree that the black community is particularly homophobic.  But, black people don't seem to be voting based on gay marriage.  I don't see how black people would start voting GOP over than one tiny issue.  Certainly, black people don't tend to be social issues voters in the Christian right tradition at all.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Not all minorities are the same.

I think what's more likely is that conservative black minorities start to fracture on social issues a bit.  However, I could see a stable and sustained majority coalition of educated white liberals and educated hispanics and asians.  Educated hispanics and asians share the same values as highly educated and culturally liberal whites.  The Democratic party should begin pushing for this coalition, which will clearly be the majority in the future.  Virginia is a perfect example of this, Democrats used to rely primarily on black voters to win but is increasingly relying on hispanics and asians in Fairfax county.

In short, suburban whites + asians + hispanics = the future of this country.

Rural whites and blacks = the past.

Maybe you weren't trying to be offensive, but that's kind of a gross thing to say.  Or, more than kind of, maybe extremely gross.  I know the point you're trying to make, which is fine.  The second that you put black people or rural white people in that neat type of box, you're being ignorant of the diversity of huge groups of people.  It sounds to me like you're saying that people who are poorly educated and not culturally advantaged are not desirable.  IE, poor dumb people who don't share my cultural values are not worth pursuing or advocating for. 

I would submit that a political party should try to build a coalition of everyone by respecting everyone.  If you just write people off and assume that they're dumb or not worthy of your attention, you deserve to lose their votes.  That's part of why Republicans lose national elections, they legitimately don't care about large portions of the electorate.  Democrats are guilty of the same thing often times, in talking down to voters and assuming we know what a rural white person or urban black person cares about.  I think people ultimately want the same things from government, but they all want to be respected, listened to and not pandered to or written off.

How is lumping rural whites and blacks that are conservative together at all offensive.  People on this website are so PC it's offensive.  First of all, you have to write off winning certain groups to appeal to others.  My point stands and I'm not going to be bullied by the PC police like you.  The Democratic party should focus on suburban minorities and whites and for the most part should write off rural areas in terms of targetting. 

Also, if anything, you presuming that rural or less educated = "dumb" to use your own words then you are actually the disturbingly offensive one.

Statistically, black conservatives virtually do not exist.  There are black people with traditional Christian beliefs and issues like homophobia and hostility towards minorities.  There are hardly any black people who are politically conservative and vote Republican. 

And, I don't think you understood me.  Targeting usually refers to campaign activities like phone-calling, door knocking, TV ads, direct mail, etc.  I think that's a tactical thing and, sure, we shouldn't be spending money trying to target voters who won't vote for Democrats.  If that's what you mean, I don't have a problem.

But, there's tactics, on one hand, and there's messaging and strategic thinking.  In those terms,  it's ridiculous to say, we don't care about "XYZ group."  It's also ridiculous to say that black people or rural voters have needs and values that are at odds with Democratic Party values.

You keep saying, it's "ridiculous to say" and then say something I never even said in the first place.  Perhaps you are just at odds with your own assumptions rather than anything that has actually been presented.  Might want to reflect on that.

Additionally, when I was discussing rural whites and blacks I was definitely thinking about issues like gay marriage, so obviously they are "conservative" on those issues, which are at odds with the democratic party.  Indeed, both groups (rural whites and rural blacks) are shown in poll after poll to be less supportive of gay marriage than the average American.

Gay marriage won't be a partisan issue in like 15 years.  Republicans under 30 support it at a much higher rate than Democrats over 60.  It will (thankfully) die out, so I don't see how the GOP will wooh Black voters on that alone.  I think the GOP's most realistic way to expand the map is court ALL moderate suburbanites and re-establish the GOP as the party of the suburbs.  Will it be difficult?  Definitely.  But sticking to cultural conservatism (this doesn't count abortion but rather things like opposition to gay marriage and immigration reform) is a losing strategy LONG-TERM (abandoning it immediately is also a losing strategy, unfortunately), and the GOP leadership knows this.  The problem for the GOP wasn't JUST that America got less White (that certainly has hurt the party's chances of winning); it's also that while it got less White, the GOP also lost moderates in the Midwest and New England to the Democrats during the Clinton years.  I think the only way forward for the Republican Party is to regain those independents and moderate Democrats they lost ... I'm really not seeing what minority group is going to flock to us in droves soon (though there is room for improvement with more well-off minorities, and it's pretty telling of our image problem that we still lose those voters.  I'm also a little nervous that without cultural conservatism to lean on (and as I've stated, I think that it's not sustainable), I don't see how we don't take a step back with working class Whites, too.  Not a good situation.

[DS0816]

I've believed for awhile that the democratic coalition is sitting on top of a volcano ready to erupt. My evidence for this happening is looking at parts of the country where this is already underway. In chicago for example the black community has turned hard against Emmanuel, calling him the "murder mayor" and such. New York is probably in the advanced stages of this with the Ocean Hill-Brownsville incident in the late sixties, the Bloomberg/BDB schism (Bloomberg would be a dem anywhere else) and the, until recently, Cuomo/WFP schism.

Thoughts? Opinions?

What you mention, actually, is that the Democratic Party needs to go left.

In the 1993 Oscar-nominated documentary, The War Room, about the winning 1992 Democratic Clinton-and-Gore campaign, James Carville referred to then-incumbent Republican president George Bush as "yesterday." That Bush so "reeks of yesterday." This is also the case, here in the 2010s, with the former Illinois congressman and unpopular Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel.

ABC News, which loves corporatists, should reserve a job for Rahm Emanuel if they so adore him; but he too is so reeking of "yesterday" that he is now a liability, not an asset, to this modern Democratic Party and what leadership is needing from them by the people of the United States.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

This won't happen if white liberals act like real liberals, rather than New Democrat sellouts.

[Sol]

This won't happen if white liberals act like real liberals, rather than New Democrat sellouts.

Well, most white liberals are the latter.