Why do minorities and women in the US generally vote left wing?

[JustStopDude]

I think most people that thing welfare is some easy thing to get or that its desirable to be dependent on it...have never actually dealt with the system.

Its a shitty cycle to be stuck in.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

I think most people that thing welfare is some easy thing to get or that its desirable to be dependent on it...have never actually dealt with the system.

Its a shitty cycle to be stuck in.

They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.

My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

What I'm saying is that Republicans need to get better at persuading minorities. There's no Republican candidates campaigning in minority neighborhoods trying to argue the case for limited government and personal responsibility.

Trump.

They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.

My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.

Yeah it's not really intended to be a temporary thing to help people between jobs. Or if it is it's structured horribly for that purpose. A lot of the welfare programs seem designed with the intent of being permanent and actually setting up a situation where you'll end up substantially worse off financially if you try to improve your position and get off them.

That said even if they don't start that way that system tends to produce shitty people that have difficulty even imagining not being dependent on that system so I'm not sure it's as simple as just arguing your way past it.

 

[Vorhtbame]

Simple truth: People are naturally risk-averse and hate change. Government safety nets are offered under the premise that they reduce risk and make radical change (especially personal change) less necessary.

Women especially hate risk. Most of us are naturally that way because we are the ones who have to look after the kids, and instability makes it harder. That is not a bad thing, because someone has to balance out Dad's willingness to embrace risk for bigger rewards. But now inject that into a voting context, and you get the left-wing Nanny State looking pretty good compared to the Wild-West attitude of the right. Whether it's actually better or worse is irrelevant; that's our gut instinct.

Minorities, besides other things people have raised upthread, also have been told all their lives that there is no success waiting for them. Risks cannot lead to rewards because Da White Man is just waiting to swoop in and snap it out of their hands. Why take the risks, then? When you've been taught to live in fear of someone, you'll put your support behind the people who say they'll protect you. And since they tend to live in self-segregated ghettos (from which generations often cannot escape), they seldom meet with a white person who proves this perception flawed.

There's more to it--again, look upthread--but this is absolutely a factor. The right-wing women and minorities I know are much less risk-averse, more independent in attitude, and less fearful of the dreaded White boogey Man. What you expect from life tends to color how you address it.

 

[Slap47]

They just see people like Chris who tard around on $400 a month and think most welfare recipients are like that.

My issue with welfare recipients isn't they're getting it, it's once they have it they'll usually intentionally gimp themselves and their families in an effort to keep it.

The system gimps them.

Make too much money? Welp, no insurance for you anymore, also, we're reducing your payout by a huge % and kicking your kids out of their program, etc

 

[Medicated]

As with the majority of the posters in this thread you're completely missing the point, and repeating the same racist rhetoric that minorities will only ever want welfare and their minds can't be changed.

What I'm saying is that Republicans need to get better at persuading minorities. There's no Republican candidates campaigning in minority neighborhoods trying to argue the case for limited government and personal responsibility.

I don't think the solution is to pander by race or gender. The simply creates division and resentment and "othering". Look at what pandering has done, people are virtually asking for 1950's segregation. The only identity a political party should pander to is the American identity. Everything else should just focus on the most important and largest needs of the population. Measurable ones btw, not "i feel oppressed".

Why should I voted for a party that would tell me I should feel good about myself because they are helping illegal immigrants with housing, medical, and job placement, more than their own homeless citizens? Meanwhile, I'm not exactly raking in the cash over here, and the labor force is getting more people that can be paid under the table?

Is the lefts hope to create communism by opening borders to the point where every country turns into the same cartel run warzone that the refugees were trying to escape from? Every country will then be equally shit.

 

[Joan Nyan]

The only identity a political party should pander to is the American identity.

That's a great platitude, and a great ideal, but the reality of the situation is that a lot of minorities don't feel connected to the "American Identity". I think they could be convinced to, but someone needs to make that case to them or else they'll keep voting for the people who at least pretend to care what they think.

It doesn't have to be pandering to black people as if they're different or something, but just Republican candidates going into majority-minority neighborhoods and campaigning and talking to people. The GOP won't pay for candidates to campaign in minority neighborhoods because they think there's no chance of winning. They're right in the short term, they'll lose the next election, but in the long term making inroads with minorities is vital for the party's long term survival. If Republicans can reach just ~20-25% of black voters the Democrats will never be in power again.

 

[Medicated]

That's a great platitude, and a great ideal, but the reality of the situation is that a lot of minorities don't feel connected to the "American Identity". I think they could be convinced to, but someone needs to make that case to them or else they'll keep voting for the people who at least pretend to care what they think.

I'm not so sure about that, since many blacks feel that Obama was just a platitudes and ideals man, with his "believe in hope" and making regular entertainment appearances. Many think he did nothing to help blacks. However if you said you were going to outline how you were going to get Americans in the low class better economic conditions for them. Not only do you help blacks, but you also end up helping everyone else in the lower class. And you don't even need to single out people through identity politics.

Which is why I suspect that lower to middle classes are happy about Trump, since curbing illegal immigration is just one step towards securing the prosperity of the citizens. Certainly more than most administrations have done in the last 15 years.

 

[Mrs Paul]

I know most of it's probably just joking around here, but let's see: would you vote for the side that refers to you as someone who just wants their "gimmies", or is just a stupid criminal/terrorist/druggie/leech/harpy, etc? C'mon now. That's just plain fucking common sense.

And it's not just on the right, either. Prime example would be Hilary Clinton's comment about Trump supporters being a lot of "degenerates". Now would she have won if she hadn't said it? I don't know. I DO almost certainly believe it was a major factor in her losing the election. Whether it was true or not, you don't fucking say things like that.


I think the coming of the religious right in the 1980s really hurt the Republican party with women. Now, once again, a lot of people on the left need to stop lumping all Christians in with fundamentalists. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all Christians a bunch of gay-hating fundies. BUT, the religious right does hold a lot of sway with the GOP, and it has definitely alienated women. I'm not going to vote for a politician that wants to take away not only my right to choose, but also in many cases think that birth control should be restricted as well. (Rick Santorum used to be my senator -- 'nuff said)
Tying yourself to a group that believes men should be in charge is going to turn women away.


About the whole "Party of Lincoln" thing. I read a comment the other day -- I can't remember where, so don't ask me to link to it. But someone basically pointed out that if you have to go all the way back to the 1860s to find an example of your party helping minorities? That's not really a point in your favor.

Speaking of "gimme", that's also not exclusive to the left, or minorities. Plenty of white people are on welfare, and hasn't it been shown that welfare recipients live mostly in red states? And forget welfare.
How much bitching do we hear about tax breaks for the wealthy? Corporate bailouts? If it's greedy for the guy down at the bottom to want to be paid a decent wage, why isn't it just as bad for the guy at the top who's just fucked over an entire industry to ask the government to bail him out?

Finally, the left tends to be the side of the under dog, and traditionally, that's where minorities and women have stood.

Look, I know this place has a lot of Trump fans. But you can't deny the dude has said some pretty hateful things about women and minorities. If someone called ME a criminal, or a terrorist or some shit like that, then good luck getting MY vote.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

I think the coming of the religious right in the 1980s really hurt the Republican party with women. Now, once again, a lot of people on the left need to stop lumping all Christians in with fundamentalists. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all Christians a bunch of gay-hating fundies. BUT, the religious right does hold a lot of sway with the GOP, and it has definitely alienated women. I'm not going to vote for a politician that wants to take away not only my right to choose, but also in many cases think that birth control should be restricted as well. (Rick Santorum used to be my senator -- 'nuff said)
Tying yourself to a group that believes men should be in charge is going to turn women away.

It's weird though, in my experience the Republicans that cared the most about religious right style social issues were all women. Granted I don't have any statistics to back that up, it's just an anecdote. Just I've seen the shrill church-lady types voting single issue on that far more than men.

Look, I know this place has a lot of Trump fans. But you can't deny the dude has said some pretty hateful things about women and minorities. If someone called ME a criminal, or a terrorist or some shit like that, then good luck getting MY vote.

Only if you take an attack on one or one group of women or minorities as an attack on all women and minorities.

 

[Inflatable Julay]

Minorities and *ugly* women. There are plenty of hot Ilsa's out there.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Aren't most white women Republicans? Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent.

Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.
Republicans have a racism problem, and if you disagree with that, you're ignoring the reality of the GOP. There's no good reason that 65% of Asian American voted for Clinton otherwise. Except for refugees, they're not on welfare and believe strongly in small business and pulling yourself up. I don't see why Republicans aren't majorly courting them. It's the only way they're still going to have House seats in California in 20 years.

Maybe women vote for left wing politicians because we're more altruistic. Sorry for thinking people dying because they can't afford insulin is bad.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

Aren't most white women Republicans? Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent.

Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.
Republicans have a racism problem, and if you disagree with that, you're ignoring the reality of the GOP. There's no good reason that 65% of Asian American voted for Clinton otherwise. Except for refugees, they're not on welfare and believe strongly in small business and pulling yourself up. I don't see why Republicans aren't majorly courting them. It's the only way they're still going to have House seats in California in 20 years.

Maybe women vote for left wing politicians because we're more altruistic. Sorry for thinking people dying because they can't afford insulin is bad.

GOP would probably have a better image if they dropped that neocon shit. It always felt weird to me how the party which markets itself on a platform of small government also cobstantly tries legislating Biblical moralism into law.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

GOP would probably have a better image if they dropped that neocon shit. It always felt weird to me how the party which markets itself on a platform of small government also cobstantly tries legislating Biblical moralism into law.

That's how you get the voters, though. I think the other issue is that most people don't actually want smaller government. Look at Kansas. Very conservative legislature, cut lots of taxes, tons of services got reduced. Roads were shitty, schools were shitty. And you know what happened in 2016...people voted in moderate Republicans and Democrats.
This is also why extreme libertarianism will never happen. Most people don't want it.

 

[*extremely mom voice*]

If you think about it, it seems like women should be more conservative than men. Women value social stability more than men, and conservatism is all about social stability and either maintaining a status quo or reverting back to the way things were in the past. Progressivism and social change is a risk. Like people have said, most women are more risk averse than most men. So why are women more likely to be liberal?

Part of it is that democrats and republicans are so similar on so many issues. How different would the world be if Hillary had won? Maybe HillaryWorld would have slightly more welfare programs rather than slightly fewer, slightly more environmental regulations rather than slightly fewer. Maybe the North Korea talks wouldn't have happened. There would be some furious but ultimately inconsequential scandals just like there are with Trump. But we'd still be in Afghanistan, deportations would continue just like they did under Obama and just like they're continuing now, there would be no wall, no infrastructure projects, no draining of the swamp. Just like none of those things are happening in TrumpWorld. Things would be basically the same.

So really both parties are the party of the status quo, and the only difference between them is where they fall on certain social issues that don't have much to do with the larger structure of society. Abortion is a big one. Or the party just adopts a certain style or brand that they think will appeal to people. Republicans' brand appeals more to men, Democrats' brand appeals more to women. Although it's still a pretty close split.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Man, my grandma thought Nixon was innocent

He was

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

If you think about it, it seems like women should be more conservative than men. Women value social stability more than men, and conservatism is all about social stability and either maintaining a status quo or reverting back to the way things were in the past. Progressivism and social change is a risk. Like people have said, most women are more risk averse than most men. So why are women more likely to be liberal?

you can't understand why women care about abortion and birth control? or stuff like subsidized childcare and public schools? it seems reasonable to me that women are more likely to be liberal. also, the past wasn't great for women--i mean, when my thought-nixon-was-innocent grandma was born, women couldn't vote.

 

[JustStopDude]

Minorities are mostly socially conservative. But they know that when America was a socially conservative country, being a minority sucked.

When I come to the US, I was very much conservative like my mother. It was just her and I. Very conservative Orthodox Christian. We both work very hard to get where we are. My mother went from being a nurse in our home country to cleaning houses for rich people.

The problem is, we are pariahs to average random GOP members.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

The problem is, we are pariahs to average random GOP members.

Actual Republican voters are pretty diverse. Not as diverse as Democrats but when you get to ground level you see more variety.

Republican lawmakers however generally fit the mold of "boring white Christian with a neocon haircut".

 

[JustStopDude]

Republican lawmakers however generally fit the mold of "boring white Christian with a neocon haircut".

This is pet peeve of mine, but I have lost track of Evangelical that has told me I am like satanist because I am not Evangelical...and as child I had to translate the Vulgate into multiple languages. I have run into many American Christians that believed Jesus spoke American English. Sorry...I am drinking...to hear sola fide Evangelicals tell me I am not Christian...I must laugh.