Friday, May 31, 2019

Hmm. Verification

Ola, everyone. I ran across an interesting article yesterday that seems to verify a lot of what I've been talking about lately. Let's discuss.

The article is at Politico (LINK) and it involves a study conducted (on the left) to try to determine what is going on in the Democratic Party. Ostensibly, they are confused why Biden and Bernie would be front-runners and they have tried to investigate it. What they found is this:

● Democratic voters want a female candidate... like I've been saying. They found an overall preference of 7% for a female candidate over a male. Women prefer female candidates by 8%. That doesn't sound like much but when they focus on "liberals" that number goes up to 15%. That's really significant, and I suspect it's even higher among "liberal women." It would not surprise me if it's close to 20% or 25% in that group.

Why does that matter? Well, think of the age thing I talked about the other day. Almost all the "moderate" Democrats are seniors. They will die off. As they do, liberal women will become 60% of the party. That will be an overwhelming advantage for female candidates. As I said, the Democratic future is angry white women.

● What about blacks? The polls finds a 4% preference for blacks over whites. BUT there's a catch. Blacks have a 15% preference for blacks. Take them out and whites only have a 0.7% preference for blacks. So blacks are largely at 0% among whites. In other words, there is a real indifference to blacks among the very white women who will be running the party... as I said. There isn't a hate for them, there is just an indifference, even an ignore-ance. Again, that is why I see this becoming a white woman's party, because they simply aren't thinking about anyone but themselves.

As aside, Latinos have a negative preference for blacks which offsets the 0.7%, not that Latinos really matter to the Democrats at this point.

● What about gays? I've been telling you that gays have left the party and, therefore, have become persona non grata. There is evidence for this everywhere. Now we add this study to the list. Gays are the one group to show a negative preference. In other words, gays get a -1.2% preference overall, but have a -7% preference from religious Democrats and a -6% preference from blacks, who have never been comfortable with gays. So gays, at best, are seen indifferently among white woman (some chunk of whom are likely lesbians -- probably 3%, suggesting a nearly -2% preference among straight white women), and they are seen negatively among all the other groups except high income, nonreligious, liberals (college professors and lawyers).

● Now let's add one more factor. The authors of the study point out a reason why these numbers may be worse than they appear. There is a preference (certainly among leftists) to lie about their own views to virtue signal. In other words, they know it's wrong to not want black candidates or to dislike gay candidates or, frankly, to express any preference. Even choosing women over men, while considered virtuous by many liberals, is still a prejudicial position that many will claim not to support even as they do. So it is very possible that this study understates the pro-woman bias, the anti-black/indifference-to-blacks bias, and the anti-gay bias. These numbers are already significant handicaps. Add another 3-5% in the wrong direction and they become nearly impossible hurdles.

So what does all this mean? Frankly, I think it confirms what I've been talking about. Democrats seem more normal now than they will become. Crazy huh? They are drifting to becoming a party of angry white women who want white women in power by a large number... that means the end of the male facade. Blacks want blacks in power, but no one else does and white women don't think about them. That means blacks get left out. Gays are passe and I think you won't see much energy expended on their issues.



tryanmax said...

I imagine (with no backing) that this may spell doom for the trans movement, as well. We're seeing a lot of press questioning the appropriateness of trans women competing against women women in sports, where the term "level playing field" is literal. But "level playing field" is also a feminist expression, so it can easily bleed out to other areas.

A lot of people openly wonder what the next cause after trans-rights will be. A lot of people say pedophiles. I think that's unlikely. I think a more likely cause is one that favors unmarried childless renters. (Or punishes married homeowners with children, either way.) Think "spinsters' rights" but with a better label, TBD.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's one of the clues I've seen that women are turning against gays (politically), that it's becoming a big deal that trans-women should not be allowed to compete against regular women because of the advantages they have.

This kind of complaint was silenced as hateful 4-5 years ago, but is now made quite openly by female athletes of all stripes.

In terms of the next cause, I think trans-rights will be the last for the left on sex issue other than those claimed by women's groups (rape, equal pay, prostitution, sex trafficking). There aren't enough numbers in those groups, backing them hasn't paid off, and there seems to be a growing distaste for what's left.

Anthony said...

Interesting study but hypotheticals are worth very little and worth even less when they touch upon things people might lie to themselves (or others) about. The paragraph below is the only meaningful paragraph in the study.


So why then are two white men leading in the polls? Our findings give us probabilities based on the demographic traits of hypothetical candidates “all else being equal.” But in the real world, all else is not equal—the real race involves Biden, Harris, Sanders, Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and other candidates with specific histories, skills, foibles and policy positions. And right now, two white guys are in the lead, regardless of what Democratic primary voters prefer in the abstract.


As I've noted many times voters (even before the Dem field told shape) voters support charismatic, viable candidates they agree with. An repellant gibberish spouter isn't going to appeal to a voter even if that gibbersh spouter happens to share their gender or race or what have you.

Also worth noting is that parties reshape themselves around candidates (especially winning candidates) so it doesn't make to much sense to make projections about the distant future based on what voters are saying at a given moment. Since wave elections started in 1994 we've had four presidents, two from each party and the presidents on nominally the same side of the political divide have had sharply differing philosophies. When power swings away, then the once dominant philosophy is deemed to have failed and beliefs and coalitions shift.

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry to anybody who saw that weird bit of spam. Sadly, there are a lot of guys out there with non-functioning genitalia and they seem all to have found the internet.

Critch said...

Hickenlooper was talking to a crowd in California the other day and said something to the effect that to beat Donald Trump they can't go the socialist route,,,,he was booed loudly...yep, the Dims are going hard left...the middle of the road Dems won't vote, or will vote for Trump.

AndrewPrice said...

I'm back from Yellowstone!

If you ever get the chance, visit the Grand Tetons. Much better than Yellowstone.

Post a Comment