Skip to main content

Democrats need to reach out to more voters

Democrats are often known as the party of diversity and inclusion. While that may be true and may provide a difficult path to victory for Republicans years down the line, Democrats need to reach out to more voters in order to win more elections today.

Over the course of multiple election cycles, Democrats have won when it comes to the following demographics: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBTs, Arabs/Muslims, non-religious, women (not so much with white women, however), college students/young people, etc. So, yes, as this country continues to become increasingly more diverse, well educated, and with that, accepting, the Democratic Party appears to be in pretty good shape years down the line. However, as recent midterm elections and last night's special elections have showcased (not to mention the general election), even with the support of all these demographics, the Democratic Party continues to fall short of victory more times than not. So what do they need to do? Try to appeal more to working class white voters, elders, independents/moderates, soldiers/veterans, Christians, and, as Donald Trump called them, the forgottens.

The one demographic I think Democrats should focus on improving their image with the most is elders. While college students/young people are always unpredictable come election day, the most consistent and most reliable voters, regardless of the election, are elders. This is one major reason why Republicans tend to overperform during the midterms. With decreased voter turnout, while Democrats attempt to woo the least reliable voters, Republicans can tend to count on the most reliable voters, and well, you have seen the results. In my opinion, Democrats would be stupid to not try and make inroads with the older voters. Let's look at this for a second here. Which of the two parties doesn't want to implement social security spending cuts? Democrats. Which of the two parties doesn't want to raise Medicare premiums by 500%+? Democrats. Which of the two parties wants medical marijuana to be legal nationwide? Democrats. Of the two major parties in this country, Democrats' policy proposals are more friendly to the elderly community than the Republicans' proposals. Unfortunately, these realities aren't often shared by Democrats with this community, as they feel they're a lost cause on election day. I don't think that's true, however, and until we try to reach out to older voters, we're not going to know what the potential results of such outreach could be.

This strategy should also be implemented with regard to Christians. Sure, most Christians and Democrats may disagree on the abortion issue, from a simply black-and-white perspective, but let's provide some nuance and try to reach them on other matters. With regard to the hot-button issue that is abortion, whether a person labels themselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice," you're never going to hear a person shout out, "Abortions rule! I love having abortions! They're awesome!" No, even the most pro-choice person wouldn't say that. They simply believe it's a woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Also, whether abortion is legal or illegal, the procedures are still going to be performed. So let's try and reach "pro-life" Christian voters by speaking to them matter-of-factly, but not condescendingly on the issue. The fact is comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraception decrease unwanted pregnancies, and with that, abortions. Study after study shows this. If kids are educated on sex and the potential repercussions of it, are informed about contraception, and know where to purchase it/them, they're more likely to engage in safe sex, and will thereby be less prone to suffering an unwanted pregnancy and contemplating an abortion procedure. So, through all this, we can tell the "pro-life" community, "Let's not take away a woman's right, but let's try to decrease the number of abortions through education and contraception." It's at that point we can then try to explain Planned Parenthood's purpose, and how just 3% of their procedures are abortions, whereas 97% of them are to prevent pregnancy, abortions, disease, and/or cancer. Moving away from the abortion issue, we can try to reach this voting block by discussing how Jesus was a peaceful man, one who looked after the poor, one who didn't judge others, and one who loved all, regardless of their innate traits. We can then try to delve into the differences between the Republican and Democratic Party platforms with regard to tax reform, quality, and war vs. diplomacy. Again, it does no good for us to completely write off a demographic like this one, and could do a world of good to try and reach them, so we have a better understanding of one another, and so we may see more votes for our party come election day.

Lastly comes quite possibly the two trickiest-to-win-over demographics, whites and "the forgottens" (many of whom are white). The Democratic presidential nominee has lost the white vote in each of the past 11 election cycles. The closest any Democrat came to winning this vote was Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, when he lost to Republicans George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole by 2 percentage points. Over the past five election cycles, the Republican candidate has averaged to beat the Democratic candidate among this demographic by the tally of 57.0% to 40.4%, which is a difference of 17.3%. The closest among these five races was in 2008, when Barack Obama lost to John McCain by 12 percentage points. I think the biggest problem Democrats have with white voters is, due to Democratic candidates spending so much time wooing other demographics, focusing on equality, white voters seem to feel as if their health, well-being, and futures aren't as important to the Democratic Party, so why vote for them? Democrats need to find more balance here, and even though it may be a tricky balancing act, it is possible. The fact of the matter is, rich straight Christian white men have, generally speaking, been afforded more privileges than other demographics in this country. In saying that, however, when we stand up for women's rights, for Muslims' rights, for LGBT's rights, or say that Black Lives Matter, rightly or wrongly, some in the white community, especially straight Christian white men, feel as though we don't care about them. While it may make rational sense for us to focus more on disenfranchised groups of people attaining equal rights than those who already have said rights and maintaining them, we have to start doing more to at least acknowledge the latter. Black Lives Matter simply means black lives matter too/also, not that only black lives matter. This is why many whites, in misunderstanding the message the BLM movement was presenting, often times responded, "All Lives Matter!" In essence, they're right, but the two camps were on different wavelengths, unfortunately still are, and we have to do more to understand one another, show appreciation for one another, and with that outreach, earn more votes on election day.

While Democratic candidates can't take for granted the minority, woman, or college student vote and should continue trying to win them over with good policy ideas moving forward, they also need to start trying to reach out to more demographics, and with that, increase the odds of winning elections today, as opposed to 5, 10, 20 years from now. If we consider these demographics lost causes, chances are we're going to continue to lose. If we head into election season with a different mindset, though, the tides could certainly change, for a potential voter is only unreachable when we fail to reach out to them.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"