Democrats Propose New Whites-Only Primary

A senior Democratic Party official outlined a new proposal that would allow only white voters to participate in the remaining primaries. Under this proposal the Party would only count the votes of Caucasians whose income level is considered to be "working class," and whose political orientation is considered conservative - or, as the official put it, "culturally non-elite."

"The other people can vote," he said on conditions of anonymity. "We're just not going to count their votes."

"We don't want those latte-sipping liberals choosing our nominee," he added. "You know who I mean: They're the ones who knew the war in Iraq was wrong and who don't like it when our presidential candidates - or their husbands - triangulate on torture."

Yet you're pushing to have the votes counted from Michigan and Florida, which you guys agreed wouldn't be counted and where Obama didn't campaign -

"Right! That's another reason we're discounting all these other votes. Gotta make room for the ones we're squeezing in through the back door."

How will this new plan exclude these "liberals," as you call them?

"First, no college towns," the official said. "We're not counting their ballots. And no college graduates either."

Why's that?

"They're not the votes we want. They're not 'real people.' real people are always white and never liberal. That lets out African- Americans, too, so we don't want them picking our nominee."

That doesn't sound right. Won't there be a big public backlash to a whites-only primary?

"Heh ... you'd think so, wouldn't you? But we've been using this logic for months now in making our pitch to superdelegates, and nobody's really squawked. I give the media a lot of credit for keeping the whole matter quiet."

What about white voters in states like Iowa?

"They don't get counted, either. Only white voters in big states, or little states that we don't have a chance in hell of winning. Those are the kinds of voters we need to win over, so we'll be counting only their votes going forward."

Um, I don't quite follow the logic. But what about caucus states?

"Nah. Any state irresponsible enough to hold a caucus instead of a primary deserves to be disenfranchised. I mean, even the word sounds elitist. 'Caucus.' They don't say 'caucus' down at the bowling alley, son."

But the caucus participants were hard-core Democratic activists - (at this the party leader tugged at his pants.)

"Caucus this, junior! Catch my drift?"

I hate to sound idealistic here, since I know how you guys hate that, but in picking a candidate ... shouldn't everybody's vote matter?

"Look, fella, do you want to win or not? If we're going to win, we need to get those white working-class voters - the ones that have consistently voted Republican for the last few elections. And to do that we have to bring out the Karl Rove playbook."

What do you mean, exactly?

"Oh, you know. Make senseless economic proposals like the gas tax holiday, because we figure - just like the Republicans - that the rubes are too stupid to know the difference. Then, when the people with some expertise disagree with us, call 'em 'elitist.' Disparage the experts, just like Bush. We can see when something works."

But what about your fellow Democrats? What if they don't want to join in a counterproductive policy like the gas tax holiday?

"Then we put 'em on the spot, just like the Republicans do. That's the answer! Make them 'stand up and be counted' - Karl came up with a great phrase there. I'm sure he won't mind if we borrow it. If they won't pander along with us, cut 'em down like timber."

"Remember: The only voters we need to win are lower-income whites, and if we have to damage other Democrats to get 'em we will."

But what about African-American voters? Won't this new strategy of yours alienate them?

"Sure, but where are they gonna go? It doesn't matter how black people vote in the primary! Forget South Carolina! It's not like they'll vote Republican, right?"

And what about those liberals you've been taking for granted?

"They're so hardwired for the lesser of two evils that they'll pick it every time."

But if you've alienated liberals and African-Americans, you've depressed the entire base of the Democratic Party. The GOP's always said you need to energize your base to ensure high voter turnout and effective fundraising.

"Aw, hell, son! We don't have to do everything those Republicans do, do we?"

But the real voters you're courting aren't just lower-income white people, they're lower-income white men. So if you really want to use your logic, shouldn't you only count the votes of white men?

"No way, boy! That would violate one of our core Democratic Party values!"

Which value would that be?

"Inclusivity."

______________

Blogs:

A Night Light

The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Comments

[inwonderland]

One of the reasons Obama is losing White working class rurals...is NOT a deficient campaign or flawed candidate.

It is racisim.NO MAIN STREAM Media dared to cite this obvious "symptom" of why Hillary has captured White working class vote.

She is smart enough to spin Obama being out of touch. We know that the race card being played late in this race.

No one thought Barack Obama could win, so they voted their hearts in the early contests. NOW that it might be possible that a Black man could be the nominee AND the President, the olde fears are coming to the fore.

HILLARY SHOWS NO CONTRAST TO JOHN MCCAIN.

1. She voted for the war, as McCain. Obama opposed the war from the start.

2. She supported NAFTA - shipped jobs overseas. John McCain still supports NAFTA.

3. She supported the outing of Reverand Wright through ABC News. John McCain through FOX played Wright's rants til the cows moo.

4. She wants to "obliterate Iran" - John McCain sang Bomb Iran months ago!

CLINTON IS A GOP IN A PANTSUIT.
That she would lend her credibility to under the covers race bating, saying to superdelegates: HE CAN'T WIN, If folks don't know what she meant when she says that,we have our rose colored glasses on.

This is a test of how far we have come as an open-minded nation.

IF Superdelegates pick Clinton if she does not win the delegates, we will be set back a hundred years.

[Lorifromky]

The uneduated white vote. Hillary will be wearing tank tops and waving the confederate flag anyday now!

[sparkandy]

Nah...the Democrats don't need white working class voters. They didn't in the last two elections, did they?

[liberalghost]

Depends on whether the goal is to stand for the right things or simply get elected.

The fact that Bush got the lion's share of working class voters kinda' makes the point, doesn't it?

Everyone attacks Pelosi and Reid as whimps for not opposing Bush, but the key electoral gains were in Red States. The result being very unreliable "democratic party" legislators. Those very legislators are not confident their constitutents will again support them in the next election if they oppose Bush. Just the facts of political life. So Pelosi and Reid are playing it safe. Until there are anti-Bush/anti-Iraq marches involving 100s of thousands down Penn. Ave, P&R will take the middle ground.

[Sloane7]

A white only lower income demographic sounds like the only votes Clinton wants to count. This article would be satirical if it weren't for Clinton and her campaign where it seems to be exactly what they want.

[repent1]

You know everything does need to be printed!

[shel3364]

Is this a satrical article or the latest memo from the Clinton camp??? It's getting more and more difficult to tell the difference.

[ThirdSection]

ROTFLMAO!

Seriously though, it seems that this year the Democrats' base is certainly well-energized. The GOP base on the other hand, seems rather deflated.

[kikiva]

Haha.

If you Huff Post columnists spent 1/8 of the time attacking McCain and the Repubs instead of fellow Democrats, the Democratic party might have a chance in the fall.

Think about it...oh never mind...you won't.

[LouisPWu]

If the Democrats acted like adults and really worked at trying to get the only Viable candidate past the primaries without destroying him, maybe PEOPLE WOULDN'T POKE FUN AT THEM!

[liberalghost]

Define "Viable".

[LouisPWu]

That would be funny if it weren't true.

[SevereTireDamage]

Nice try, RJ, but Borowitz does this stuff way better...

[IslandGyal]

He was great; I guess he lines up with my sense of humor, so much so, I have already passed it along three times.