New poll data suggests that whites abandoned the Democratic Party in the 2010 elections in favor of Republicans. A full 60% of white voters backed Republican candidates compared to 37% who backed Democrats. What I find interesting is that reasons for abandonment of the Left’s agenda by whites is not racial.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
I’m glad that this poll data shows that the disappointment lies in his “performance” as well as “the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities.” To a reasonable person, that transcends race.
That won’t stop the Left from saying it’s based on racism. We’ve spent the last two years hearing that the only reason a person could oppose President Obama is because they are racist. Now we will be subjected to hearing the arguments that if you oppose the Democrats in general you must be a racist.
Consider that we’re already hearing that John Boehner’s position on supporting what I could call “free-loaders” is “coded language.” And we know that when the Left says something is “coded language,” what they really are saying is that they are saying something racist without mentioning race. This is what is known as “dog whistle politics,” something we will no doubt be discussing further in the near future.
For now, you can expect that if you argue with a Liberal about expansion of government, they are going to consider you to be a racist.
“I think it’s the last gasp of the 55-year-old generation. Older folks have seen their life change dramatically. The country’s not the same. Every morning when they see the president, they are reminded that things are totally different than they were when they were born. The economy, and the uncertainty of the economy fuels [the Tea Party movement], but this is the last gasp of a generation that has trouble with diversity.”
Take a look at this article from the Weekly Standard. They point out the obvious that Dean is trying to avoid – the Tea Party movement is made up of about 77% whites and 23% non-whites. That’s pretty close to the demographic make-up of the U.S. in general, which is about 75% white and 25% non-white. [source: USA Today]
And his statement that the movement is almost entirely over 55? USA Today reports that the 55 and older demographic is 47%. That’s not “almost entirely” in my book. In fact, that percentage of the voting populace doesn’t get you the White House anymore (not since Bill Clinton). Incidently, the over 55 demographic did account for more than 37% of voters in the 2008 election according to the Census Bureau, not too far off of their 47% representation in the Tea Party. 23% of the Tea Party is under 35, matching the 24% of the vote coming from that demographic in the 2008 election. [election data acquired from census.gov]
It’s an age old political tactic – misrepresent your opposition to marginalize their position. Old and out of touch, white and racist – that’s what they’d like to to believe – even if the facts tell a different story.