Exactly.

(I think whites are still more than 58% of the population, including Hispanic or Latino whites.)

Yeah, I was trying to account for Hispanic/Latino by doing a silly back-of-envelope thing (I thought "70% white - 10%ish self-reporting as latino, then guess a random number") - I just looked it up, it's more like 74% report as white, and about half of the 14% that reports as latino is white/latino, so more like 67%ish. So yeah - you're way right here (which reinforces the point of how retarded this article is).

This is why we hire someone to handle demo balancing for me.

The 74% is more like it. :) I thought I had missed some huge demographic shift. Whites used to comprise 80-or-so% of the total population.

The % that reports as Hispanic and Latino does not reduce the % of white. Hispanic and Latino origin and race are distinct concepts and the Census adopted this method in 2000 (http://www.census.gov/popest/race.html). This means the 74% is correct.

So yeah the article is like announcing that water is wet, especially considering the size of the white male population and the fact that their vote has always mattered a whole lot, in general. However, the article also addresses how white males who plan on voting Democrat are, for the first time, choosing between racial and gender minorities. This is the first time the white male Democrat vote will not be used for a white male and that's where they may feel like they are under a microscope (i.e. "let's see who white men are gonna vote for THIS time") and as if their votes are a tie-breaker of sorts.

What if at least some white males voted for the candidate they felt was best qualified, regardless of sex or race??? Wouldn't that skew their little census??

Some friends and I were talking about this:

We think that some people (read: not all) will end up changing their minds when they are actually at the polls because the reality of the matter will sink in.

For instance, some (read: not all) racial and ethnic minorities who were not pushing for Obama may feel differently when they are actually about to vote. Some (read: not all) women who were not pushing for Clinton may feel differently when they are actually about to vote. Even people who said they weren't going to vote based on gender or race this entire time. Some (read: not all) racial and ethnic minority women may struggle with which is more salient and beneficial in the long run and this may result in a very last minute change of mind on their part.

To that extent, I honestly think some (read: not all) white liberals who have been pushing for Obama this entire time will change their minds when they get to the polls. Same goes for men who have been sounding progressive by supporting Clinton. Of course, people will say that I'm full of it for saying that, but it's hard to know what many people will choose when the reality of voting for a particular person who is a member of a particular GROUP sinks in. Regardless of the platforms. People want to feel progressive and unswayed by demographic factors, but when no one's there to monitor whether their gender or race-neutral progressive words translate into action, they might fall back.

People are notorious for lying to pollsters. So there's that, too.

How would it?

FYI: My other post about voters changing their minds isn't in response to this one. I read this post after I posted.

They keep discussing the male vote in terms of sex and race - seemingly ignoring the fact that there is more to the candidates than whether or not they have a penis or the color of their skin. To assume otherwise is really sexist or racist. That's all I was saying.

There are more to the candidates but not every voter votes based on that.

And those who do will still be choosing one of the 2 candidates, which will still have sex and race implications whether folks like it or not.

That's why I said "some".

What about it, is what I'm asking.

Just pointing out another reason this rather "Well, duh!" political analysis is, well, "duh" worthy.

The elephant, or donkey I guess in this case, in the room is that they discuss the white male Democratic vote in terms of race, sex, and generation but not platform. That's it. I'm not noting what's there as much as what is not.

eta - I'm apparently hallucinating now, so I think I'll go to bed.:o

You aren't hallucinating. I deleted my post because I think I was having a "duh" moment of my own and hallucinating that the article said something that it did not. So I decided to take a Law and Order and sandwich break. :o

Now I've re-read part of the article and completely see what your initial post was talking about. :o The article does seem to assume that demographics were the decision making factor for the average black, female, and (hypothesized to be for the) white male voter. And that of course won't account for every voter's decision making process but is an attempt to observe and predict a trend. As long as there is a trend to observe that more or less goes along with their predictions, the results of their "census" won't be messed up.

whatever you 2 are smoking.....I want some....