Highly unlikely Democrats will “Wake Up” to how estranged they are with key components of their coalition

By Dave Andrusko

It’s rare, actually very rare, for a single news story/analysis to set the conventional wisdom on its head. But that’s exactly what Nate Cohn’s piece in the New York Times accomplished, as we discussed Monday.

Cohn systematically dismantled all the comforting myths that pro-abortionists and their media enablers subscribe to. In an in-depth analysis from polling conducted in six contested/swing states, Cohn demonstrated (as a very unhappy David Leonhardt observed today), “The poll showed Trump with a good chance to win re-election, given his standing in swing states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida.”

It’s actually much worse than that. The poll demonstrated that, as weak as he is, former Vice President Joe Biden stands a better chance that fellow pro-abortionist Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is not particularly well-liked and seen by many as essentially a Socialist. She is a tough sell that some “centrist” Biden supporters would vote for President Trump over Warren, if those are their choices.

Yet, for all the mythology about Biden’s supposed appeals to White working class voters, he is almost exactly as unpopular with them as Warren is!

A follow up is in order. Writing for the Times, under the headline “Wake Up, Democrats,” Leonhardt is trying to figure out how “progressives” can be sufficiently “progressive” yet “signal in other ways that they care about winning the votes of people who don’t consider themselves very liberal. Democrats, in short, need to start treating the 2020 campaign with the urgency it deserves…”

Leonhardt’s advice, his list of how-tos? Vague and wishy-washy to the point of caricature.

Another key finding in Cohn’s piece is the comparative weakness among non-white voters of Biden, Warren, and Sen. Bernie Sanders:

Meanwhile, Biden, Warren, and Sanders all fall short of Clinton’s advantage with black and Latino voters, with Warren more than 10 points behind Hillary’s pace in both groups. There’s no evidence in this poll that she’d be any stronger a candidate against Trump than Clinton was and some reason to believe that she’d be a weaker one. She even trails Trump in Iowa by the widest margin of any top-tier Democratic candidate (six points) even though she leads the Democratic primary there in other NYT polling.

If you piece together this with a post written by Thomas Edsall that appeared in the Times September 12, you see Democrats are in serious trouble with African-Americans. In a word, they are way too “liberal” and way too pro-abortion.

In “No One Should Take Black Voters for Granted”, Edsall quotes Katherine Tate, a political scientist at Brown, who wrote that starting in the 1980s,

public opinion revealed a distinctive shift toward political moderation. The black opinion shift, I argue, is based on the transformation of African-American politics, away from radical challenges to the political status quo toward inclusive, bipartisan electoral politics.

Earth to Democrats, that is not the politics you are preaching, indeed, it’s about as different as you can imagine. Edsall follows that up with this observation:

Contemporary polling provides evidence of moderation among black Democrats compared with the views of white Democrats. The poll data suggests a reversal of traditional roles. More conservative and more centrist Democratic whites were once the tempering force within party ranks. Now, on some of the most controversial issues currently under debate, African-Americans — who make up an estimated 25 percent of Democratic primary voters — have emerged as a force for more moderate stands as white Democrats have moved sharply left.

Let’s use our issue as a very telling example:

In the case of abortion, the WSJ/NBC surveys show that 97 percent of white primary voters agree that the procedure should be “totally legal” compared with two thirds of black primary voters. A vanishingly small number of white Democratic primary voters — 3 percent — said abortion should be illegal, compared with a third of black Democrats.

Which is illustrative of the gigantic divide within the Democratic coalition as it is currently composed, dominated by extremely liberal Whites:

According to WSJ/NBC polling, the percentage of white voters describing themselves as very liberal or liberal is roughly twice as large as the percentage of black voters who do so. Conversely, the percentage of African-Americans describing themselves as moderate or conservative is almost twice as large as the percentage of white Democratic primary voters who describe themselves that way.

There is, in a word, a growing disconnect between White and Non-White members who are self-identified Democrats. And this certainly applies with respect to Hispanics.

Nothing—nothing—better captures this than Warren’s tone-deaf use of “Latinx” as she began her outreach to Hispanic voters. Why?

Hispanics do not call themselves Latinx.

Ross Douthat wrote earlier this week that

last week a progressive pollster ran the numbers and found that it hasn’t caught on at all: “Despite its usage by academics and cultural influencers, 98 percent of Latinos prefer other terms to describe their ethnicity. Only 2 percent of our respondents said the label accurately describes them, making it the least popular ethnic label among Latinos.”

Douthat adds

[I]n their public-facing rhetoric, Democratic politicians are speaking to people who mostly don’t use that word, don’t prefer it to other labels and may not even recognize it. So a politician who uses it, especially a white politician who uses it, may come across as condescending, jargon-dependent and, well, rude.

Emphasis on condescending.

There is so much here, circles within circles. None of is redounds to a party that is militantly pro-abortion, PC to the point of absurdity, and increasingly identified with a brand of politics that may sell in Sweden but is a flop in the United States of America.