5 comments on “There Are Worse Things Than Losing the White Vote or Why Bad Political History Bugs Me.

  1. Thanks for drawing public attention to the excellent Kuhn article. Somehow I had missed it.

    Democrats on Capitol Hill are, naturally, in a frenzy. The party anticipates getting demolished in Senate races in 2012 and 2014, what with so many Senate Democrats defending seats the next two cycles, including numerous freshmen. Further, the party anticipates getting clobbered—again—in House elections in 2012 and 2014, what with redistricting by GOP-controlled state legislatures (where GOP control is now at its highest level since 1928) as well as redistribution of House seats in favor of GOP states as a result of the 2010 census.

    Of course, it was all over for this administration in the summer of 2009, as Kuhn relates in his key passage:

    “It’s no accident that over the summer of 2009, when healthcare dominated the debate, Obama first lost the majority of whites and independents.”

    Surveys uniformly establish that support for the White House started declining precipitously last summer among all segments of society, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, geography, education, or income.

    There is one exception: the black voter.

    You seem to have trouble grasping this very simple fact.

    • One wonders if you read either my or your post.

      Surveys uniformly establish that support for the White House started declining precipitously last summer among all segments of society, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, geography, education, or income.
      There is one exception: the black voter.

      Doesn’t this suggest precisely what’s wrong with articles like Kuhn. Why does it only matter to him that Democrats lost white voters, when it seems they lost voters across the board, except for African Americans. Why is it that our, or should I say your, understanding of racial politics limited to black and white. American demographics are much more complicated than that. Either way, I’m not quite sure what your argument has to say about the way media pundits (mis)use political history.

  2. My point, I believe, was an obvious one—although too subtle, perhaps, for one such as yourself: that the rejection of Democrats since November 2008 has been widespread and deep, and across all lines (save one), and has nothing whatsoever to do with the “racial politics” of which you so inanely write.

  3. I *must* be slow, because from my vantage point it looks like you started out your criticism of me by praising an “excellent” piece by David Kuhn which was entirely about racial politics and you’ve evolved into criticizing me by calling any discussion of “racial politics” inane. Now as thrilled as I am that I have become your little bete noir, perhaps you should work on logical consistency before lobbing that haterade slushee at me.

  4. You ARE slow.

    My first comment very gently poked fun at your obtuseness, but it took you some time to figure that out (and only with some reinforcement from me).

    The Kuhn article was NOT about “racial politics”, which I would think should be quite clear to you by now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s