California urban white male democrats

[Bismarck]

A quick look at local elected officials in the Bay Area and LA such as city council members, state senators, and state assembly reps shows that white male democrat elected officials in these areas are overwhelmingly either gay or Jewish. This is not a problem of course but I wonder what the cause is. Certainly most white men in the California cities are neither gay nor Jewish, even though these two groups are a larger share of white men in LA and the Bay Area than most other areas of course. So is it that non gay non Jewish white men are less likely to run for office? Or are enough of them Republican that they actually are outnumbered by the aforementioned minority communities? Or do they run for office at similar rates but have less success in primaries? Anyway I haven’t been to California since I was a child so im very curious about this phenomenon.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think this actually exposes a bit of the underlying toxicity in very very liberal cities like SF area.

I think in these places, part of a winning messaging is talking about how you fill at least one diversity quota whatever that may be. If you're a straight white European male that becomes very difficult, and you tend to sort of be washed away in the background. It's not like the South where oftentimes, at least historically, whites are unwilling to support any black candidate, but it's sort of a subtle thing.

Also if you read newspaper stories from these communities, it often talks about how candidate X a strong voice for the X community, and part of the reason they'll be a strong voice is because they're part of that community.

[Bismarck]

I think this actually exposes a bit of the underlying toxicity in very very liberal cities like SF area.

I think in these places, part of a winning messaging is talking about how you fill at least one diversity quota whatever that may be. If you're a straight white European male that becomes very difficult, and you tend to sort of be washed away in the background. It's not like the South where oftentimes, at least historically, whites are unwilling to support any black candidate, but it's sort of a subtle thing.

Also if you read newspaper stories from these communities, it often talks about how candidate X a strong voice for the X community, and part of the reason they'll be a strong voice is because they're part of that community.

This would apply for the gay community but I can’t  imagine Jewish men are running as part of a disadvantaged minority group are they?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think this actually exposes a bit of the underlying toxicity in very very liberal cities like SF area.

I think in these places, part of a winning messaging is talking about how you fill at least one diversity quota whatever that may be. If you're a straight white European male that becomes very difficult, and you tend to sort of be washed away in the background. It's not like the South where oftentimes, at least historically, whites are unwilling to support any black candidate, but it's sort of a subtle thing.

Also if you read newspaper stories from these communities, it often talks about how candidate X a strong voice for the X community, and part of the reason they'll be a strong voice is because they're part of that community.

This would apply for the gay community but I can’t  imagine Jewish men are running as part of a disadvantaged minority group are they?

The Jewish communities tend to be pretty concentrated and block vote so they’re a bit of the exception. Same thing in nyc

[Tintrlvr]

I think the basic answer is that white straight Christian men who are liberal are very disengaged from politics. They don’t feel at risk due to politics (unlike gay men, or men from racial, ethnic or religious minorities, or women generally), but they also aren’t outraged at liberal trends in politics (because they largely agree with the liberals). Most politicians are from very privileged backgrounds no matter their group, too, so they’re not outraged from an economic perspective. Politics is also a tough career, but especially in urban areas where the competition among aspiring politicians is most fierce (because people in the class who become politicians are concentrated there); they can make more money and have a more fulfilling career in finance or tech or law or medicine or engineering or whatever. So they vote, but they don’t volunteer or run for office.

[Torie]

I think this actually exposes a bit of the underlying toxicity in very very liberal cities like SF area.

I think in these places, part of a winning messaging is talking about how you fill at least one diversity quota whatever that may be. If you're a straight white European male that becomes very difficult, and you tend to sort of be washed away in the background. It's not like the South where oftentimes, at least historically, whites are unwilling to support any black candidate, but it's sort of a subtle thing.

Also if you read newspaper stories from these communities, it often talks about how candidate X a strong voice for the X community, and part of the reason they'll be a strong voice is because they're part of that community.

And here I thought you lived in NYC area. Sometimes, I think the only issue in Dem primaries is the "presentation."

[Crumpets]

I think the basic answer is that white straight Christian men who are liberal are very disengaged from politics. They don’t feel at risk due to politics (unlike gay men, or men from racial, ethnic or religious minorities, or women generally), but they also aren’t outraged at liberal trends in politics (because they largely agree with the liberals). Most politicians are from very privileged backgrounds no matter their group, too, so they’re not outraged from an economic perspective. Politics is also a tough career, but especially in urban areas where the competition among aspiring politicians is most fierce (because people in the class who become politicians are concentrated there); they can make more money and have a more fulfilling career in finance or tech or law or medicine or engineering or whatever. So they vote, but they don’t volunteer or run for office.

Yeah, speaking as an urban white male Democrat in Seattle, I think this is probably the closest answer, even if there are a lot of factors. I'm someone who is very engaged politically and I know a lot of other guys with my same background who are also very politically engaged. But even those of us who go into public policy, politics, and those sorts of professions, just generally see ourselves in other roles besides elected office. It's harder to speak from the heart on a lot of key issues if you've had a relatively privileged life and white male Democrats who have not lived a privileged life (for example, those who grew up in poverty) have a whole different set of obstacles to get to that point. If you have a degree in poli sci from some state school and are working to pay off student loans or if you're a young professional who is just casually interested in politics, you're probably going to see sticking to your normal job as the safe bet. And that goes across all races and genders, but you're just generally going to be more likely to find yourself in that position if you're a young white male in a city.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Bay Area (this is all nine counties, not just San Francisco) is 36% non-Hispanic white, as of the 2020 census. That means that its white male population is about 18% of the total, give or take a percentage point or two. Excluding gay and Jewish men, as the first post in this thread does, reduces the numbers further. Even if we assume that the straight white male population of the Bay Area votes mostly Democratic (probably true), they certainly vote less Democratic than the Bay Area does in general. What that means is that we're probably looking at 10 to 15 percent of the Democratic electorate in the Bay Area being made up of heterosexual white males from a Christian family background. You could do a similar exercise with Los Angeles, if you wanted, and the number would similarly be quite low.

With that in mind, it's hard to argue that the people described are really underrepresented in elective office in California's major metropolitan areas relative to their proportion of the Democratic electorate. One of them is governor, for instance. It's probably true that in other places such people are overrepresented in a way that they're not in California.

[Tintrlvr]

The Bay Area (this is all nine counties, not just San Francisco) is 36% non-Hispanic white, as of the 2020 census. That means that its white male population is about 18% of the total, give or take a percentage point or two. Excluding gay and Jewish men, as the first post in this thread does, reduces the numbers further. Even if we assume that the straight white male population of the Bay Area votes mostly Democratic (probably true), they certainly vote less Democratic than the Bay Area does in general. What that means is that we're probably looking at 10 to 15 percent of the Democratic electorate in the Bay Area being made up of heterosexual white males from a Christian family background. You could do a similar exercise with Los Angeles, if you wanted, and the number would similarly be quite low.

With that in mind, it's hard to argue that the people described are really underrepresented in elective office in California's major metropolitan areas relative to their proportion of the Democratic electorate. One of them is governor, for instance. It's probably true that in other places such people are overrepresented in a way that they're not in California.

This is a good point that I meant to make in my previous post but didn't; thanks for highlighting it.

[Bismarck]

The Bay Area (this is all nine counties, not just San Francisco) is 36% non-Hispanic white, as of the 2020 census. That means that its white male population is about 18% of the total, give or take a percentage point or two. Excluding gay and Jewish men, as the first post in this thread does, reduces the numbers further. Even if we assume that the straight white male population of the Bay Area votes mostly Democratic (probably true), they certainly vote less Democratic than the Bay Area does in general. What that means is that we're probably looking at 10 to 15 percent of the Democratic electorate in the Bay Area being made up of heterosexual white males from a Christian family background. You could do a similar exercise with Los Angeles, if you wanted, and the number would similarly be quite low.

With that in mind, it's hard to argue that the people described are really underrepresented in elective office in California's major metropolitan areas relative to their proportion of the Democratic electorate. One of them is governor, for instance. It's probably true that in other places such people are overrepresented in a way that they're not in California.

So essentially white Christians aren’t underrepresented as much as Jewish and gay people are very overrepresented. 

[Orser67]

I agree that there's some self-selection and simple demographics involved (as other posters talked about), but I don't think that's the whole story.

For example, take this article from 2018:

San Francisco Acting Mayor London Breed was removed from the job by her colleagues at the Board of Supervisors in a Tuesday vote that surprised many in the city.
...
The vote to remove her as acting mayor came after hours of public testimony -- much of it very emotional and charged with racial undertones. As soon as it became apparent that the first African-American woman to lead San Francisco was being replaced by a white male representing some of the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, the board chambers erupted.

Some members of the audience, infuriated by the turn of events, chanted, "Shame, shame, shame."

"This is war!" some shouted as board members left the chambers.
...
Farrell's appointment as interim mayor was delivered not by his allies on the Board of Supervisors' moderate faction but by the board's most progressive members, including Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim, who is herself running for mayor. Their goal was to remove the political advantage Breed had as acting mayor in the June election -- and they did.

I think this shows one example of how there's a disadvantage to being a white male politician in San Francisco in the current political climate. There are a lot of highly mobilized voters/groups who place a high priority on electing diverse candidates, and who are outraged by anything that they perceive as backsliding.

[Tintrlvr]

I agree that there's some self-selection and simple demographics involved (as other posters talked about), but I don't think that's the whole story.

For example, take this article from 2018:

San Francisco Acting Mayor London Breed was removed from the job by her colleagues at the Board of Supervisors in a Tuesday vote that surprised many in the city.
...
The vote to remove her as acting mayor came after hours of public testimony -- much of it very emotional and charged with racial undertones. As soon as it became apparent that the first African-American woman to lead San Francisco was being replaced by a white male representing some of the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, the board chambers erupted.

Some members of the audience, infuriated by the turn of events, chanted, "Shame, shame, shame."

"This is war!" some shouted as board members left the chambers.
...
Farrell's appointment as interim mayor was delivered not by his allies on the Board of Supervisors' moderate faction but by the board's most progressive members, including Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Jane Kim, who is herself running for mayor. Their goal was to remove the political advantage Breed had as acting mayor in the June election -- and they did.

I think this shows one example of how there's a disadvantage to being a white male politician in San Francisco in the current political climate. There are a lot of highly mobilized voters/groups who place a high priority on electing diverse candidates, and who are outraged by anything that they perceive as backsliding.

I don't think this carries the meaning that you think it does. The people being outraged are the supporters of London Breed, who is far from the favored candidate of progressives who might be "outraged by anything they perceive as backsliding" or for that matter "put a high priority on electing diverse candidates". The outrage stems from the perceived hypocrisy of those who were removing Breed for saying they are the true supporters of minorities but suppressing a candidate who won mainly on minority votes (and is herself a minority, of course) for ideological reasons; ultimately, their primary outrage is ideological and a feeling that minority votes are being ignored, though certainly with an overlay of anger that ignoring minority votes also results in removing a politician who is a minority.

It's true that they wouldn't have had the same ready line available if the progressives had found a black woman to prop up instead of a white man, but the same anger would have been there that mostly white progressives were removing the preferred candidate of mostly non-white moderates.

[Orser67]

It's true that they wouldn't have had the same ready line available if the progressives had found a black woman to prop up instead of a white man, but the same anger would have been there that mostly white progressives were removing the preferred candidate of mostly non-white moderates.

I don't think this a dishonest or irrational take on the article, but I disagree with it, and nothing in the article specifically supports your argument about why people in the crowd were angry. Personally I think it's likely that the reaction was less about the complex political maneuvering that ended with progressives installing a white guy from an affluent area (who, it should be noted given the context of the thread, was likely installed in part because he wasn't viewed as a threat by other mayoral candidates), and more about the crowd simply reacting to what they saw: a rich white guy replacing a black woman. Now to be fair, I will certainly admit that their reaction was not just about race and gender, but also about class/money.