The Edwards Implosion

I received the following via email this morning and it's a great read, enjoy:

The Edwards Implosion - and why it is extremely important even though the experts are basically clueless about the meaning of the results

The most important question of the moment is : "What happened to Edwards in Nevada ? "

Why this is important is because of another question that needs to be asked- "what has happened to white male Democratic voters ? " After all, the party cannot expect to win without them. People in the party are now talking about a "dream ticket" of Hillary and Obama. This would be a nightmare ticket . Such a candidacy would go down to decisive defeat

The hithertofore less than popular Republican Congressional delegation on Capitol Hill became a GOP House majority in 1994 because of what the press called "the revolt of white male voters." The role of white males may well be played out at the presidential level in 2008. We are, after all, talking about 1/3rd of the electorate.

The implosion of Edwards support in Nevada may be instructive. Without hard data I can't be sure about this, but as an hypothesis to test, here is one set of possibilities:

About a week before the caucuses, opinion surveys showed a strong 3 way race with Edwards polling at about 27 %., Obama had 32 % and Hillary 30 %. Two days before the caucuses Edwards' poll numbers had
shrunk to 14 %. In the last analysis he ended up with just 4 %.

This implosion calls for an explanation. Until maybe 5 days before the nose-counting, Edwards was starting to perform at levels that a theoretical model says he should perform, as a rallying point for white male Democratic Party voters.

This is not some sort of indictment of white male Democrats but a statement of rational choice principles. Women, ceteris paribus, will vote for a woman because in their estimation such a candidate understands
their concerns more than any man can possibly do. Similarly with respect to Black people, Italian-Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, or any others. ceteris paribus may not prevail all that often -plenty of women vote for men and vice versa, similarly with respect to race and other variables, but this IS a significant factor in any political calculus.

In the case of white males, there is also an effect that could be seen in Iraq among the Sunni population until very recently -indeed it still exists there, even if diminished- a strong sense of entitlement. That is, white males pretty much made America. . Hence 100 % of US presidents have been white males, and the pattern applies to CEOs, generals of the Army, and so forth, not to mention great innovators, where the Edisons, Alexander Graham Bells, and Leon de Forrests outnumber the George Washington Carvers by a magnitude of about 25 : 1.

Now, in one fell swoop, all of that is about to be relegated to oblivion in the political sphere ? To say the least, this is not rational from the vantage of white male voters.

For a while it seemed as if Edwards was a viable rallying point. But given Democratic Party social values, and Political Correctness rules of discourse which make it nearly impossible for Democrats to be truthful about such matters , it became obvious in Nevada that the winner of the caucus was going to either be Obama or Hillary. What is the best white male rational choice under the circumstances ?

Clearly, black voters have now coalesced around Obama in very large percentages, closing in on or exceeding 80 % -where, until fairly recently Hillary still had a majority. White voters of both genders see this happening and wonder and may well be alarmed even if, given the social values of the Democratic Party, they cannot say much ( if anything ) about it. Not openly, anyway. PC acts as a censorship device that kills discussion of many kinds of issues, in case you hadn't noticed.

That is, the party has suddenly become racially polarized. White male elites in the party, because of Civil Rights ideology, are in the Obama camp , where such support is viewed as "enlightened" no matter how
objectively underqualified he may be. But the less-reticent-to-be honest ( white ) blue collar class now votes for Hillary ( economically they might be expected to be Obama voters ).

Yet there is something wrong with this picture. White male Democrats, once the backbone of the party, are now a shrinking minority. Hence the lessons to be learned from Edwards' collapse. And from 1994.

Even with a Democratic best case scenario for 2008, in which the party can be expected to win the presidential election by a good margin., a near complete turnover of the leadership to women and minorities
would result in defeat. My figures are not precise but are close enough, of white Democratic voters, about 6o % are women and 40 % are men. EITHER a Hillary or Obama candidacy and the 40 % becomes 35 %.
If a "dream ticket" is nominated the 40 % becomes 30 % or conceivably LOWER.

Rational choice theory would explain it even if party leaders with Political, Correctness views reinforced by the ACLU's influence in the party, would blame it all on prejudice. Not to discount the role of bias, but the point here is that this factor would be minor, the essential consideration is rational choice

In other words, despite the fact that -at least as I see it- the economic policies of the Democratic party are superior to those of the GOP, the party's social ideology is so dysfunctional that it is about to commit political suicide simply because its leaders cannot understand -or allow themselves to talk about-the obvious.

EITHER the candidacy of Hillary Clinton OR the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic party will lose the November presidential election.What could have worked, and probably worked well, would have been a scenario whereby either an African American ( think Harold Ford if he had won in 2006) or a woman became the Vice Presidential nominee. But this was not to be.

Which is why the failure of the Edwards campaign is so important.

The Democratic Party has become fundamentally irrational.

Billy Rojas

former instructor :
US History, Social Science

Eugene, Oregon
January 19, 2008

_________________________________________________________________
Sharing the article and Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Old Atlantic]

I agree an interesting read. Reading this I find myself agreeing with many points. But buzzers go off that this is borderline dangerous to talk about. As long as that is true, we are in trouble.

That is in effect the same thing as the article is saying. White men do feel endangered and have been subjected to too many cases of extreme attack. Losing ground should hurt and focus the mind.