How do we get more men to vote for democrats?

[lumberjack_jeff]

Let's brainstorm.

I think supporting liberals like Ed Shultz is part of the answer.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ed-schultz-on-being-named-one-of-the-least-influential-people-alive-kiss-my-a-gq/

And, you know, look. You do a cable show, you have a radio show, whatever. If you’re fat, you’ve got red hair, look, they’re going to pick on you. That’s the way it is. And I’m ok with that. Just spell the last name right.
Now, I know that Anderson Cooper floats around in that GQ crowd. I don’t know if he’s behind it, or whether their publicist at CNN… Let me just say: I’m kicking his ass.
By the way, I’m very influential. You can go ask the governor of Ohio, and it won’t be long before you can ask the governor of Wisconsin. So kiss my ass, GQ.

That's how you talk to working class guys.

[limpyhobbler]

1. Don't let republicans walk all over us.

Take bold positions based on principals. Fight hard for people. And don't back down just because republicans complain, or a few conservative dems complain.

Don't compromise without at least putting up a fight first. Stand for something.

We'll never be able to out-republican the republicans.
So instead we can fight for universal health care. Stand up against unfair trade deals. And don't be afraid to call out people in our own party when they aren't doing the right thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I think the current crop of 40+ white suburban males are a lost cause.

They've invested too much into their rightwing ideological stance to be salvaged. The 20-30 something's are another story. They can be reached, but the party has to stop with its neoliberal/neocon nonsense, clearly indentifying itself as the party that supports individual freedom and equality of opportunity in contrast to the repressive theocratic social conservatism of the republican party, and stop being all wishy washy about social democratic policies.

Ditch austerity in favor of strengthening social security, real universal healthcare, and educational access for all. End the war on drugs. End the endless war on terror.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. I think that the 40+ group is a lost cause because we've never heard from an economic populist.

We haven't heard from them because the guy who gets 99 slices of the 100 slice pizza is the one who finances elections.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Solid libertarian stances on social policy. Anti-censorship, anti-drug war, pro choice in all areas.

And make the MORAL case for telling the authoritarian, church lady types to fuck off.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. In addition: Look at the demographics for Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota.

A great deal of that was driven simply by his stance on legalizing pot. A lot of men would support such a stance.

[Upton]

7. Indeed they would..

according to this Gallup poll of a couple months ago, 55% of men support legalization..



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I think it depends a bit on the way the idea is promoted.

IMHO Legalizing pot shouldn't be the end goal, but a milepost along the road to maximizing personal liberty.

In our society, capital has maximum liberty to exploit the workers and the workers have minimal liberty to simply be left alone.

[Old and In the Way]

11. I got this recurring nightmare that the Republicans drop a platform bomb

They read polls and know that they are starting to lose the <30 folks in a big way...running a Cleric for POTUS tends to do that. Anyways, they might take a page out of RP's playbook and play the Legalize It card. Why not? They can't get much more milage out keeping it illegal and they know their small government under the bedroom covers will have plenty of these impressionable minds spooked. But make pot legal? Watch them beat feet into that tent...cuz that's the immediate issue that they can relate to...cheap, hi quality dope.

And Democrats will be going...."hey...wha...."

[Warren DeMontague]

12. it would be a brilliant tactic, but they hate hippies too much.

So much of what motivates them is this unreasoning loathing of secular godless elites who also manage to be tree hugging hippies who sponge off the welfare system while somehow managing to send their kids to private schools, eggheaded arrugula-eating latte drinkers who have ipads yet live in birkenstock-infested yurts.

It doesn't make sense, but they've been running on fumes, intellectual-wise, for a long time now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. But their followers are nearly infintely malleable.

As soon as they say that as small government conservatives, pot should be legal, the sheep will be all over it. That's what makes them authoritarian-friendly.

[Upton]

6. I agree with Warren DeMontague..and I would also add..

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2012, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

lay off the talk about the need for more gun control. Look at these numbers, very few subgroups, men are at only 37%, favor any further restrictions on our RKBA.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Gun control is widely recognized as a loser issue at the federal level.

Unfortunately, the pols in our party haven't got the similar message about continued pot criminalization and the stupid drug war.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. Agree about Ed

I turned a couple of guys on to Ed who thought they themselves were "generally conservative", and said they liked what he had to say and made them realize they were more liberal than they thought.

[mistertrickster]

13. Stop acting ashamed of working class men?

That'd be a helluva good start.

The DLC made a conscious decision to be the party of the young professional . . . truck drivers, plumbers, and carpenters need not apply . . .

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. I have similar feelings and think I know what you mean, but can you give me some examples?

Jeff Greenfield captured my thoughts on the topic about 4 years ago.

[mistertrickster]

17. This article is great.

"the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)

BINGO!

I think the real problem emerged in during the Vietnam War. Young college-bound kids telling hard-hats that they personally were to blame for sexism, racism, and empire is no way to gain hearts and minds. Burning and shitting on the American flag after the working class came back from WW2 and Korea, again, very counter-productive.

Liberals still haven't outlived the blown opportunity that was the 1960 counter-culture.

[SpartanDem]

18. I'd agree getting Ed types out more front and center

would do a lot to dispell myths the right has created about Democrats. Part of politics is connecting on an emotional level, we really don't that well with working class men. People vote in part for they politicans/parties they can relate to, even for college educated liberal crowd, Obama appealed those sensabilties. There are plently women and minorties faces, but even those are not usually working class types. It seems for Democrats they have unwilling or unable to put people that really connect with the working class like Ed up front, even though they're big part our party.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I'm kicking this back up because it's a pressing question.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Kick

[ZenLefty]

21. Your foot's been busy today

(I like the storm smiley. Other than that, I got nothing.)

[Warren DeMontague]

22. It's like a twitch, or a spasm

A spitch? Twasm?

Every once in a while the butter needs churnin'.

...diggin the storm smiley, too.

[MicaelS]

23. Odin2005 nailed it for me over here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=33399

The Dem betrayal of the working class started in 1968. The activist faction within the party became dominated by "bourgeois" upper middle class types obsessed with cultural issues who derided the values of working class Americans. This lead to the emergence of the "Reagan Democrats" and the alignment of working class white men with the Republicans. We Democrats are seen an "elitist" party of upper-middle class yuppies by a lot of working class people.

That doesn't mean gay rights, women's rights, etc. are not important, but they should not displace economic progressiveness as the central "hub".

Every time an Upper-Middle Class Dem talks about how virtuous they are because they bought organic food at Whole Paycheck they drive more working class people into the hands of the GOP.

And I added...

The idea that the only people that mattered were those in the large urban centers, help drive away those in small town and rural areas.

Trying to restrict / ban guns is just part and parcel of this. It's a urban vs non-urban issue. I know gun owners who say they will never vote Democratic as long as the Party advocates Gun Control and Gun Prohibition.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. "Every time an Upper-Middle Class Dem talks about...." and this happens all the time, right?

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

"Every time an Upper-Middle Class Dem talks about how virtuous they are because they bought organic food at Whole Paycheck they drive more working class people into the hands of the GOP."

Yes, some days its impoosible o even get through town becuse of the lines of loud latte sipping and arrugula munching yuppies boasting about their virtue ipdue to their choice of grocery store.

Actually, i think you point up an interesting problem with all sorts of sectors of our electorate, and that is the tendency of people to ril against and argue with the syereotypical straw figures they have in their heads ("yuppies boasting about whole foods&quot than actual reality.

I agree in one point, gun control at a fedreal level is a loser. But so is continued pot prohibition. So is restricting choice.
.

Rather than trying to pickand choose which demographic group to piss off at the expense of which other one, far more sensible is to articulate a cogent agnda combining ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM with PERSONAL FREEDOM.

Its not complicated.

[ElboRuum]

26. Actually, you are right, it isn't complicated.

However, Odin is right.

Perception matters, whether the perception is based on reality or a propagandized version thereof.

Liberals have lost this demographic because they don't understand that working class people care about one thing first and foremost, economic stability and opportunity. Granted, social issues are important, but any political party wishing to attract people who if they lose their job are essentially fucked in short stead are going to need to make economic issues the main plank of the platform.

Unfortunately, and this may be an MSM thing, it seems that the Democratic party policy wonks are "concerned" about the economy, but still wringing their hands about its importance and the gravity of the situation. It's also a bit of a Third Way thing as well. It just seems that we seem more comfortable talking about other issues of greater social import and lack the perceived outrage (at least to the extent that is most visible to working class men not already in the liberal camp) to the very real threat of perpetual corporate hegemony that we face.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Perception, yes. But the "latte sucking liberal who preaches about how great he is for shopping at

Whole foods elite arrugula elite organic elite elite"

I think what some people are doing there is perceiving a stereotype that isnt actually there.

[ElboRuum]

34. Goes to my point.

The perception is there. It may be a reinforced propagandist perception, but it is there nonetheless.

I think, in a lot of ways, our concern for the environment, equal rights, peace in the world, etc., to them at least, always drowns out the economic fairness message. The fact is that there is economic benefit aplenty in that message, but they aren't hearing it.

Now is this real or is it Memorex?

When I replied to this thread originally, I took a look at what was on the Greatest page. The bulk majority had nothing to do with economic issues, some dealt obliquely with it (i.e. health care reform, which is economic in effect), but only one or two directly reporting and engaging on economic policy. Granted there is a lot going on right now to occupy time, but considering the fact that the idea of liberalism is first and foremost the idea that the government has a significant role to play in the economic prosperity of the citizenry, it is amazing how little of our attention here is paid to it. One or two threads on the TPP. Probably one of the more significant events under discussion. NAFTA on steroids.

Being on the left means a certain devotion to some social ideals such as justice and fairness and equality. It goes with the territory. But those issues mean little to someone who is going on two or three years of unemployment. Often, though it is in the social arena that we feel qualified to speak loudest, our arguments seem to have surer footing, and our passions for them run deep. Economics is, by nature, drab, unexciting, and does not easily engage passionate invective. We, like all, play to our strengths.

Just my two cents. Your mileage will vary.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I'm talking about odin's specific quote. He said, "Every time an Upper-Middle Class Dem talks about

how virtuous they are because they bought organic food at Whole Paycheck they drive more working class people into the hands of the GOP."


If that's not something that is ACTUALLY happening, if that is a made up stereotype, then how can it be "every time that..."?

To the larger point, i just reject the notion that economic progressivism and liberalism on social issues are in any way contradictory, or even in competition. We can be for a single payer health care system and eat organic broccoli. We can support a livable minimum wage and collective bargaining rights, and also protect the environment. and in no way does something like supporting choice, the 1st Amendment, or equal rights for LGBT citizens "detract" from a message of standing up for working Americans.

It is a classic false dichotomy.

[ElboRuum]

36. I still think you are missing the basic gist of this.

I don't want to belabor this point but the crux of the point isn't "every time".

It is that ONE time that ONE upper middle class Dem talked about how virtuous he/she is because he/she bought organic food at Whole Paycheck while within earshot of people who don't have it as good that was the problem.

Even if this ACTUALLY happened once or twice or thrice, it would be a problem, because people with money (which some Dems have) and a liberal bent (some Dems do) sometimes forget that their "virtue" comes at a price some can't afford. Anyone of less affluence that within earshot of such pomposity will see that as looking down their nose at them.

And if there is one thing that working class males are quite turned off by is attitudes that one is not measuring up, not cutting the mustard, being lazy. In addition to being, well, just fucking wrong, the point of view that being working class is simply a matter of not putting for the effort or having little talent is just the sort of nonsense clueless rich people who should just shut the fuck up when they don't have a clue what they are talking about will say.

One could argue that the republicans do the same things and why would they want to be a part of that nonsense? We've heard the whole Social Darwinist thinking spoken aloud, so what the hell?

The difference is the republicans don't blame THEM, they say their lot is the fault of other people. True what they say or not, it's what they do.

Our affluent Dem of uncertain existence makes it personal. Never quite says it, but intimates a lesser worth on the listener. "I'm a better person than you."

The point is that this is such a personal slight, so cutting in its contempt, that a person only has to hear it one time to be turned off for good.

It is true that economic progressivism and social liberalism are neither contradictory nor competitive. But it is also true that our upper class Dem can afford the latter by virtue of the former. Simply put, the economics MUST come first for the rest to be possible. Struggling people care about themselves first before they care about others. It's a tenet of survival. The only way that person will find the outward presence to focus on the plight of others is to have his/her struggling cease.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Believe me, I knew plenty of arrogant, condescending rich folks well before Whole Foods even existed

I just don't see one coming at expense of the other, and I think more than anything else, Odin is tilting at a windmill, or a straw man of his own creation.

I mean, if there is one authoritative list and a numerical hierarchy of what-it-is-we-need-to do, then the point of "prioritizing" one set of goals over the other might make sense. I think a solid argument could be made for "prioritizing" environmental goals over everything else, simply because at this point in time, we've got one planet only, and if we seriously fuck that up, everything else is moot.

That said, I happen to think things like jobs and a livable min. wage and a real solid safety net are extremely high priority. I've worked a whole slew of low-pay jobs with no health insurance in my adult life, too. I think part of our problem ("ours" being the DNC) hasn't been that "we" have focused too much on social liberalism at the expense of economic progressivism, but in that we have only articulated arguments and support for BOTH sides in a half-assed, mealy-mouthed fashion, which isn't terribly inspirational to anyone. Surely, there have been changes and improvements. I happen to think the health care bill, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction. I am proud of the President for (finally) supporting marriage equality. But many members of our party have been in thrall to 'republican lite' economic policies for a long time.

Like I said; I'm all for solid economic progressivism. Livable minimum wage. Jobs projects on the scale of FDR, to rebuild our country's infrastructure (I'd also like to see more peaceful investments in cutting edge technology, from energy to NASA) A SPHC system.

But even if our party came out tomorrow for all those things, people who want to be mad about prius-driving whole foods shoppers will still find a way to do so IMHO.

Speaking of which, if you haven't seen this yet:

[ElboRuum]

39. Love it.

Fucking hilarious.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Hysterical.

[Broken_Hero]

45. Excellent video.....

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. In many ways, they are in competition.

To the larger point, i just reject the notion that economic progressivism and liberalism on social issues are in any way contradictory, or even in competition.

Take "the wage gap", for instance. There are two ways to address the 5% or so of the reported 25% that might be real; Pay women more or pay men less. Over the last 30 years, wages for men have collapsed. The correlation isn't lost on working class guys... or on their wives, for that matter.

Is the wage gap truly a "liberal social issue"? Is correlation causation? People can disagree on those points, but the more that men who request a definition of "... for the same work" are ostracized, the more we lose their support.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I think the wage gap is really the wealth gap.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. I agree with this.

Much of the rhetoric in the gender war serves to obfuscate this point. It keeps the rabble fighting with one another.

That said, if the rabble are going to fight one another, we want it to be in such a way that it wins elections for us. Gender politics drives the wedge between single women and everyone else; most married women want their husbands to make as much as possible, consistent with a decent family life.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Gun issues

This is not 1994. We could afford to be supportive of gun control when the economy was good and intrusions onto our civil liberties were relatively trivial. Since 2000, the economy has stagnated, and the intrusions have become obvious, deliberate and scary.

To rural folks, guns are a tangible manifestation of our individual liberties, all of which are under assault.

The greater harm to society is erosion of our liberty in the form of wiretaps, secret surveillance, drones and wholesale data mining than guns.

In 1994, I was very supportive of gun control. Now I'm not; there's no upside.

And yes, Odin's last sentence nailed it.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Its just a loser issue, nationally. It doesnt sell.

That is the bottom line on that one.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

29. To be honest, no Democrat in power is pushing control right now

The claims that Obama is, is just fucking bullshit. We aren't letting them have the issue, they are just lying about it.

[unreadierLizard]

30. Hearing how men are the problem, men are disposable, etc

does nothing to endear them to the Party.

Even progressive men I know stay home because they're tired of the "men are the problem" message they hear from certain female politicians/party officials.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. I'm sorry, but that's stupid. Plain stupid.

Those "progressive men" need to look at right-wing religious shitbags like Jim Demint and Rand Paul, and realize there are worse things out there, and they actually have some power. The right's radicals far outnumber anyone on the left. I think they are looking for excuses not to vote, and when they don't, they are tacitly supporting the right's grip on this country AND the idea that certain very backwards men are in control. Those men do NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. The alternative to acquiescence is pushback.

Last edited Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll be damned if I'm going to vote Republican, and I'll be damned if I'll allow my sons misfortune to be considered a tactical success for progressivism.

So, I push back.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. There's nothing wrong with pushback

As long as you accept that while there are radicals for any cause, there are also legit complaints for that cause. I don't blame many women for feeling like there is a war against them right now, just as I don't blame any man for feeling the same in regards to issues of child support, custody rights, etc. The goal here is to shut out the fringe extremists, and go head long at the ones who have power, who really don't give a shit one way or another about any of these issues, they just want to control enough of a voting block to hold power for their own interest.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. I've never heard that from anyone except a few isolated, angry internet loons.

I have a hard time believing it's keeping anyone from the voting booth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. +100

In my experience guys are supportive of the wellbeing of the women in their lives and protective of them from the forces of oppression and exploitation.

Until one day they realize... "Whoa... wait a minute, you're talking about me! You think it was my privilege to work in the rain to put you through school. You're talking about my sons as "potential rapists".

Once it got personal... it got personal.

[unreadierLizard]

46. This cannot be echoed enough. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

47. What if instead of all that there were a small but vocal group

that vigorously put forth the idea that all porn users (ie all men) are effectively rapists?

And this group is largely given a free forum to express their ideas and are rarely called to task for it.

Would that help?

[4th law of robotics]

49. Frankly if one side has a vocal, and apparently accepted minority

that actively hates group XYZ it isn't unreasonable for a member of XYZ to not want to support that party.

If the republicans invited klansmen to speak and never refuted them (although most just remained silent rather than actively participating) it would be reasonable for an average black person to reject that party.

There are active elements (albeit a minority) within the democratic party that genuinely seem to hate men. Not *some* men but men in general.

Can't blame men for being weary of that party.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I think it's a real small minority, loud internet blather to the contrary I don't think they have

all that much pull.

Obviously, in certain corners, they cause more noise than their tiny numbers really warrant, but in terms of general political consciousness I think that the honest-to-goodness Y chromosome loathers are the fringiest of the fringe.

And as has been observed elsewhere, oddly enough, most of them seem to be in Australia, or England.... or Canada.

[4th law of robotics]

52. Don't forget Sweden

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Hmm. Some of that stuff, for better or worse, breaks more on cultural/demographic/geographic lines

Moreso even than gender.

For instance, WWE wrestling, NASCAR.. I would wager are more traditionally red state pursuits. Muscle cars might skew towards rural areas.

For a Democratic Party that is heavily concentrated in blue state urban areas... Well, you get the drift.

Maybe the question is how do we broaden our appeal to red states?

As for D's mocking sports in general. I dont know, i have trouble believing our party is perceived as somehow anti-sports when the First Lady's brother is a prominent basketball coach.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. It's not all push, it's not all pull.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

But the two effects working in tandem are BAD for the party.

I was born a democrat. My grandfather was a molly mcguire. I was the only kid in my 4th grade class straw poll to support McGovern. My core values are JFK/FDR liberal.

I feel no pull from Republicans at all, only revulsion. I DO feel the push from some liberals who don't like working class guys in their club, and I'm just belligerent enough that I can't simply walk away from it.

This group became something of a mission to me for that reason. Liberal guys need to form a self-identity that doesn't come from women's studies class.

[TheKentuckian]

56. Stop trying to be an alternative to the TeaPubliKlans and get back to being choice of ideas and ends

Ignore the nannies, make it clear that the TeaPubliKlan party is a better vehicle for social controls on individual behavior, and make it as hard line and public as humanly possible including publicity stunts like setting fire to their planks.

Quit the "big tent" shit which is nothing but a permanent majority tactic that doesn't at all work and results in a constantly distorted and watered down message that seems like a bunch of double talk and a willful effort to appear to be all things to all people.

Flush the Turd Way, the source of the muddling and lots of the nanny shit (though certainly not all).

Maybe stop devaluing their work and put trades on the same tier of importance as professional jobs even when discussing education.

Maybe stop mocking his interests and entertainment.

Be a little more strategic. Pressing pay equity when falling wages, poor job security, and all kinds of cutbacks in play might tell a fella that money is coming from somewhere and somewhere is usually me.

Regular guys have to be welcome without them having to do a bunch of filtering.

Show some passion on the issue you claim to represent me on and drop. The milquetoast soft spoken nerd routine. Bill Clinton sold not because of his policies (most will have little idea what they were in actuality) though they will mention the economy. People liked Bubba because he was no shrinking violet, was flawed and therefore relatable, and presented as a regular dude and an interesting one at that who you can imagine telling a dirty joke or bitching about his wife. You could picture him at beer call after work and he spoke with great comfort as someone who would belong there. His education and circles never became a communication obstacle when dealing with regular folks.

More Ed Schultz and less Micheal Kinsley. More Brian Switzer and less John Kerry.

I think that is part of the reason for the take down of Howard Dean, he might have been to close to that effective edge, northeastern doctor and all.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. I agree with much of this.

I think we should be offering a genuine alternative, as opposed to "You need to vote for us because the other guys are nuts"

I also think tone matters. Too many important issues- like the environment- get framed by our side in the voice of the scold. No one likes a scold. People drive cars for a reason. Industrial civilization, despite the obvious problems, was developed for a reason. Its not going away.

We need to be funny, smart, progressive, fair, freedom embracing and FORWARD thinking.

I wonder how many men were inspired by Kennedy's challenge to go to the moon? We need that kind of leadership.