Starved of white voters, Tuesday night was 2010 redux for Democrats

[Fishrrman]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/11/05/starved-of-white-voters-tuesday-night-was-2010-redux-for-democrats/#__federated=1

Starved of white voters, Tuesday night was 2010 redux for Democrats
By Greg Bluestein, Daniel Malloy and Jim Galloway

For Democrats in Georgia, the most disturbing facet of Tuesday night was – despite the millions of dollars poured into the effort, despite the recruitment of talented well-spoken candidates – how much the end result seemed to resemble the Roy Barnes race of 2010.

Barnes won 43 percent of the vote four years ago. Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter each took 45 percent. Victory margins for senator-to-be David Perdue and second-term Gov. Nathan Deal were an identical 53 percent.

Your daily jolt on politics from the AJC's Political insider blogAt the root of the Democratic problem is the party’s lack of appeal among white voters, or – some Democrats might argue – the ease with which Republicans can take advantage of Georgia’s racially polarized politics.

DuBose Porter, the chairman of the state Democratic party, was clearly baffled last night. “I can’t think of one. When you have great candidates that offer a better path, I don’t know how we could’ve said it any clearer, “ he told the AJC’s Katie Leslie last night.

In his march to victory, Senator-elect Perdue, had his best showing (84 percent of the vote) in Pierce County, which has a white voting population of 83 percent. He did worst (15 percent) in Clayton County, which has a white voting population of 14 percent.

Consider these two paragraphs from an Associated Press exit poll assessment of Georgia:
RACE: The racial split remains one of the starkest divides in Georgia politics. Early exit poll results showed Perdue won about 70 percent of the white electorate. Nunn appeared to win the overwhelming majority of black voters.
OBAMA: A voter’s view on President Obama was a good indicator of how he or she voted in the Senate race. Nunn won more than nine out of 10 voters who approved of Obama’s job performance. Perdue did almost as well among voters who disapproved.

Actually, there’s evidence that Tuesday’s racial split may have run deeper than exit polls indicated.
An old Democratic hand called in the base calculations early this morning – finer stuff will have to wait until we see crosstabs. The news organizations that paid for that information are still holding it close.
But assume that African-American turnout was 30 percent, and the Nunn/Carter ticket received 95 percent of that vote. That brings Democrats up to 28.5 percent. Then be generous and assume that Democrats and Republicans evenly split a 4 percent Asian/Hispanic vote. You’re up to 30.5 percent for Democrats.

We know that white voters made up a tad under 58 percent of registered voters, but let’s assume – as the better-than-expected margins for Republicans indicate – a larger turnout of 64 percent.
Your algebraic/political formula becomes this: 30.5 + (64 x Democratic share of white vote) = 45.
The answer, under those calculations, is that Democrats won approximately 23 percent of the white vote on Tuesday night. Which is about what Roy Barnes did in 2010. Nunn and Carter needed 30 percent of the white vote to be viable.

For a party whose viability is based on a biracial coalition, that’s a serious chasm — not just for 2016, but 2018 as well.

[Fishrrman]

In months past, I've posted in this forum several times as to how the GOP's hope for the future must lie with white votes, and the disregard of minority votes.

I've posted that for examples of the success of such a strategy, we should look to the deep south, which have high concentrations of blacks (upwards of 35%, much higher in some locations) due to the slave era.

As Euro-Americans in the south properly comprehend the notion that they must "hang together or hang separately" insofar as race and identity politics is concerned, they are able to keep power in those states. This is all-the-more-remarkable, considering that up until the 1970's, these states were "the solid South" -- i.e., "solid" as in solid democratic. That is no more.

For further illustration, look at this map:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-what-a-republican-takeover-looks-likes-20141105

... and pay specific attention to the states of the South.

See the areas of deep blue nestled in there with "the red"?
They represent the concentrations of blacks in those states.

If "the white vote" was as split as it is in, say, Minnesota, which demographic group would be in control of The South today?

To paraphrase Mr. Lenin himself:
You may not be interested in identity politics,
But identity politics is interested in you.

In an ideal world, we could toss such notions into the trash.
But we don't live in an "ideal" world -- we live in a real one.

"Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be."

It will serve us best to comprehend that reality, and to use it to our advantage...