Should the GOP cede the Black vote; Democrats cede the White vote

[Suburbia]

It's clear that the GOP probably won't reach the 12% threshold Trump 2020 got with Black voters, Democrats won't get the 43% Obama 2008 threshold with whites; Latinos are the swing vote; Bush 2004 got 44%.....

Is this the future?

[THG]

I mean the black male vote is slowly but surely trending R, as are Latinos.

The demographic the GOP is apparently losing the most is college whites (aka muh “suburbanites”) and this demographic is effectively the only reason Joe Biden won the presidency.

Make what you will of that.

[Young Conservative]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

[Suburbia]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

Are you sure about that?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

Are you sure about that?

...yes?

Whites are 60% of the US population and 67% of voters in the 2020 election.

It's a statement of fact that Democrats cannot totally lose white voters and still win.

[Bootes Void]

Bronz, The GOP has already ceded the black vote. They generally only got single digits anyway.

As for the white vote, the Democrats already do really badly in the south, great plains and Appalachia

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

What others have said about dems needing the white vote is true, although to get to 50% you need ~35% of the white vote if you get 80% of minorities, which is normally filled by a coalition of the token Appalachians (20% in WV comes from somewhere), suburban folks, people from the cities, and the DSA types. Normally ads up to something around 50%.

[Non Swing Voter]

Barring major platform changes, I don't see why Democrats would cede the white vote.  People here seem to forget that liberal white people are more ideologically in line with the Democratic Party (and appalled by the GOP) than even most minorities who vote for Democrats. 

Democrats are always going to have a floor among non-religious whites or whites who support certain issues like the environment, abortion, gun control, etc.  That's a huge chunk of the electorate, which often doesn't get a lot of attention because they are highly concentrated in large professional metro areas that aren't competitive in general elections.  Though many seem to be relocating to places like Texas and North Carolina and that's really going to screw the GOP long term.  See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-patterns-should-terrify-gop/598153/

[Suburbia]

Bronz, The GOP has already ceded the black vote. They generally only got single digits anyway.

As for the white vote, the Democrats already do really badly in the south, great plains and Appalachia

If they ceded the Black vote, why are Tim Scott, Larry Elder and Kim Klacik Republicans?

[Suburbia]

Barring major platform changes, I don't see why Democrats would cede the white vote.  People here seem to forget that liberal white people are more ideologically in line with the Democratic Party (and appalled by the GOP) than even most minorities who vote for Democrats. 

Democrats are always going to have a floor among non-religious whites or whites who support certain issues like the environment, abortion, gun control, etc.  That's a huge chunk of the electorate, which often doesn't get a lot of attention because they are highly concentrated in large professional metro areas that aren't competitive in general elections.  Though many seem to be relocating to places like Texas and North Carolina and that's really going to screw the GOP long term.  See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-patterns-should-terrify-gop/598153/

CRT and this antiwhite nonsense will do it in for them.......Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine are universally white states and this stuff will shift these places.....

[THG]

Barring major platform changes, I don't see why Democrats would cede the white vote.  People here seem to forget that liberal white people are more ideologically in line with the Democratic Party (and appalled by the GOP) than even most minorities who vote for Democrats. 

Democrats are always going to have a floor among non-religious whites or whites who support certain issues like the environment, abortion, gun control, etc.  That's a huge chunk of the electorate, which often doesn't get a lot of attention because they are highly concentrated in large professional metro areas that aren't competitive in general elections.  Though many seem to be relocating to places like Texas and North Carolina and that's really going to screw the GOP long term.  See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-patterns-should-terrify-gop/598153/

CRT and this antiwhite nonsense will do it in for them.......Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine are universally white states and this stuff will shift these places.....

In Wisconsin? Sure.

In Minnesota? I am not so sure of this, considering that Minneapolis is "woke", as we saw  the Minneapolis metro area swinging blue heavily after George Floyd's death.

In Maine? Who knows?

[Non Swing Voter]

Barring major platform changes, I don't see why Democrats would cede the white vote.  People here seem to forget that liberal white people are more ideologically in line with the Democratic Party (and appalled by the GOP) than even most minorities who vote for Democrats. 

Democrats are always going to have a floor among non-religious whites or whites who support certain issues like the environment, abortion, gun control, etc.  That's a huge chunk of the electorate, which often doesn't get a lot of attention because they are highly concentrated in large professional metro areas that aren't competitive in general elections.  Though many seem to be relocating to places like Texas and North Carolina and that's really going to screw the GOP long term.  See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-migration-patterns-should-terrify-gop/598153/

CRT and this antiwhite nonsense will do it in for them.......Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine are universally white states and this stuff will shift these places.....

I don't think most white voters care about this issue.  The people attending board meetings are, as the GOP would call it, crisis actors.  I literally never even heard of CRT before the GOP tried forcememing it into a political issue.  I kind of doubt some white woman who supports abortion and wants gun control is going to wake up one day and vote Republican because of the horrors of CRT.  That's not something that actually impacts peoples lives.  On the other hand the anti-vaxx nonsense from the right has the potential to really start pissing off some moderate white republicans.

[Schiff for Senate]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

Not true for Democrats at all (though it's probably true for the GOP). Hillary Clinton in 2016 did terribly with white voters but still won more raw votes than Trump nationally. The country is becoming way less white, and demographics will favour Democrats. Democrats don't really need to win white voters if they can maintain their stronghold among minorities, though their grip has loosened, as Hispanics were inexplicably drawn to Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (see results in Southern Texas if you don't believe me) despite him being anti-Mexican and wanting to build a wall. Of course, Democrats still need some level of support among whites - but they certainly don't need 'a lot' unless by 'a lot' you mean 35-40% or so.

[Joe Republic]

How on earth did I correctly guess who made this thread before clicking on it?

[The Mikado]

If they ceded the Black vote, why are Tim Scott, Larry Elder and Kim Klacik Republicans?

You could at least pick three currently serving officeholders, rather than Tim Scott and the other two. At least stick Burgess Owens on the list.

Anyway, exit polls on the South Carolina Senate race in 2016 have Tim Scott losing the black vote 90-8. This is a Senate race he won 61-37. Tim Scott's "base" is not black people, it's white Republicans. I don't mean this in a negative way, and it's fair to point out that white Republicans vote for this black conservative, but Tim Scott is not unusually good at getting black votes for a Republican. He performs right about at the baseline, and that's true despite him being black.

[TodayJunior]

Bronz, The GOP has already ceded the black vote. They generally only got single digits anyway.

As for the white vote, the Democrats already do really badly in the south, great plains and Appalachia

If they ceded the Black vote, why are Tim Scott, Larry Elder and Kim Klacik Republicans?

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule. Clearly ideology is the driving force, not race. The real inverse of the main question here to have a better comparison is should Dems abandon the white evangelical vote? Don’t quote me on margins but it was something like 82% Trump, almost a mirror image of the black vote.

Ceding it would be the wrong word IMHO. They should aim to break into those massive margins instead; let’s say that a 75/25 white evangelicals or 85/15 for black voters, would/could make a difference in a national election. And that goes for both sides.  

[Suburbia]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

Not true for Democrats at all (though it's probably true for the GOP). Hillary Clinton in 2016 did terribly with white voters but still won more raw votes than Trump nationally. The country is becoming way less white, and demographics will favour Democrats. Democrats don't really need to win white voters if they can maintain their stronghold among minorities, though their grip has loosened, as Hispanics were inexplicably drawn to Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (see results in Southern Texas if you don't believe me) despite him being anti-Mexican and wanting to build a wall. Of course, Democrats still need some level of support among whites - but they certainly don't need 'a lot' unless by 'a lot' you mean 35-40% or so.

Democrats don't need to win white voters outright, they just need to get 30%-43% of them, if they get 30% and below, they are not doing well in a lot of places in the Midwest.

[Schiff for Senate]

Democrats can't win without winning a lot of white voters.

Not true for Democrats at all (though it's probably true for the GOP). Hillary Clinton in 2016 did terribly with white voters but still won more raw votes than Trump nationally. The country is becoming way less white, and demographics will favour Democrats. Democrats don't really need to win white voters if they can maintain their stronghold among minorities, though their grip has loosened, as Hispanics were inexplicably drawn to Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (see results in Southern Texas if you don't believe me) despite him being anti-Mexican and wanting to build a wall. Of course, Democrats still need some level of support among whites - but they certainly don't need 'a lot' unless by 'a lot' you mean 35-40% or so.

Democrats don't need to win white voters outright, they just need to get 30%-43% of them, if they get 30% and below, they are not doing well in a lot of places in the Midwest.

Agreed. Democrats need to capture at least some portion of the white vote (35-40%, in my opinion), but that portion does not at all need to be an outright majority or even a plurality.

[Suburbia]

With the white population declining, the GOP absolutely MUST go all in on the white vote. If that means going dog whistle, so be it.

Missouri, Iowa, Ohio are the future of the Republican Party.

White Democrats will be seen as "traitors" in the future, and Dems need to be careful with their rhetoric, it can cause more Jan. 6's and Charlottesvilles....

Dems need to get 35%-43% of the white vote, but if they alienate enough whites with the CRT stuff, they could lose New Jersey or Connecticut....

[THG]

This whole conversation is ironic, because it’s actually the Republicans who are losing white voters (mostly college educated) and it’s the Democrats who seem to be regressing with non-white voters (more so Hispanics and certain Asians).