Obama political machine not interested in the “men” or “white” constituency groups

The Obama administration’s political wing is moving into intelligence gathering mode since they don’t have to worry about a campaign in the future. I guess they are trying to collect information for future use. But they don’t seem interested in hearing from the “white” or “men” constituency groups.

Update: They don’t seem interested in the military constituency group either.

For certain, they do ask if you are a male or female up at the top of the survey, but when it comes to constituency groups you identify yourself with, they break-out women, but give no men option. They break out African Americans, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, Latinos and even LGBTs … but nothing about White people.

William Bigelow at Big Government notes.

Barack Obama, the Uniter, is finally coming clean – he is admitting he sees Americans not as a group striving for commonality in American values, but an amalgam of separate constituencies proud to claim their separate identities.

More at CNSNews, and here is the screen shot just in case they update the survey after an “inadvertent mistake.”

24 replies
  1. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Thanks to the venerable Electoral College (only a few swing states needed to win the presidency) and thanks to United Citizens (insane amounts of funds for campaigns) I do not find it surprising that strategists are busily mining for a few thousand targeted votes. I bet the statistics on “white males” are already baked in!

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      If that is the case, then I would bet most of the other categories are “baked in” as well, like women, youth etc.

  2. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I think white men were left out, because the Democrats have ceded them to the Republicans, unless they fit into one of the other groups. When Romney made the “infamous” remark about ceding the 47% to Obama, he was speaking strategically, but the msm never let up on it. Now when the Democrats are collecting strategic racist and sexist data, it is totally accepted.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      You have hit the nail on the head, Lynn! ?The liberal media are enablers for the highly hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do” modus operandi of the left. ?That is why I call the msm “flying monkeys” for the Democrats!

      It is appalling when you have to go to foreign news sources to get stories that the NYTimes, WaPo and other msm outlet routinely spike. ?Case in point: Benghazi.?

  3. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    If you look at the list, there plenty of categories in which white males can fit it. If Gov. Romney was correct in his evaluation of the 47% ceded to Pres. Obama, all the Dems had to do is pick up 4% of the rest of the 53% of the voters. How hard is that?

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      Don’t bother trying to change the subject to the EC or funding of campaigns, your deflecting.

      The point of the post was the Obama political folks purposefully created a women group, and left out men. They purposefully created African American and other groups, and left out whites. If the GOP political machine did the exact same survey and replaced the woman?constituency?with men, and replaced African Americans with white, all hell would have broken loose, we’d be?labeled?racist dividers – as usual – and there would be protests in the streets. I’m not kidding.?

  4. JBS
    JBS says:

    This is a stunning, macabre look into the diabolical Democrat machine and how Dems think. They may have ceded White Males (WM) to the GOP, but they struck back by denying WMs existence.
    WMs just aren’t a viable category for them to exploit. Why bother acknowledging them on their survey form? In their world, they don’t exist.
    Being White doesn’t count in their world view. Totally marginalized into oblivion. Not even worthy of having a separate box to check off. Because, Obama and the Democrat Machine, can put a dollar amount next to each of those above categories. They knew that their fundraising would be paltry from WMs. In their money-raising campaign, everyone was rated by a score, a number. WMs score were consistently low; they could not expect WMs to contribute money. So, just don’t list them as a viable group.
    How’s that for being inclusive, Mr. Community Organizer?
    ?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      I just read over the list again. Know who is missing? All of those people who are sacrificing, being a target for all of the America-haters in the world, working hard every day to secure the liberties for the takers, the suckers, the blame-America-first bunch. Who is at the sharp point of the spear 24/7? Who does Obama hate more than White (Caucasian) Males?
      ?
      ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Active military.
      ?
      Thank you to all of our American military service women and men.

      • Steve McGough
        Steve McGough says:

        Very good catch. If they are going to add all of those separate groups, they get into trouble if they don’t add EVERY ONE. That’s why I would refuse to break it up that way.

  5. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I am just checking “native American” from now on! ?Heck, I was born here!

    Maybe that is Liawatha Warren’s reasoning…?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      ?
      How will the Left spin it when when Hispanics, Asians and blacks become majorities?
      White is rapidly closing in on minority status.
      Maybe best to check: “Other” or “All of the above.”

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    This is rather amusing. As if? there are no white male: seniors, youth, educators, labor, Jewish Americans, healthcare professionals…..Sure one can spin the list to “accuse” the Dem political wing of being racists and sexists, but really…….

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Now Sammy, I always defend you, but this time you are wrong. Why do they have women as a specific group and not men? Why do they have every other ethnic group and not white or Caucasian? Msm would tar and feather the Republicans, if they did not include all groups, as Steve points out. ?If it spins one way, it should spin the other, or you just get dizzy.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Lynn is precisely correct: by your reasoning, and their poll, we are forced to assume that the Dems don’t believe there are Latino, black, Arab, woman, “native american”, senior etc., health care professionals, since they went out of their way to list them separately.

        More liberal not-so-soft bigotry??

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      How can you NOT SEE that with the Democrats it’s ALL about money and votes.
      ?
      They didn’t / don’t expect any substantial money or votes from Whit Males.
      ?
      In Obama’s Politics of Division, White Males don’t exist! To him and the Democrat Machine, they have no value. So, why even mention them as a viable group?

  7. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Well, have it your way. Accusing liberals of not-so-soft bigotry etc. is not going to move votes from the liberal voting groups into the Republicans/Conservatives. Steve alluded in earlier posts that Conservatives should try to “convince” liberals to change allegiance. You have to try harder than this to attract them (or you’ll keep preaching to the choir only).
    And, the Dems are doing “what it takes” to win elections. You may not like the strategy, I may not like it, but that’s the way it is. Welcome to the way elections are run the US.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Yet the cacophony of media and Den cries of “racism” regarding their complaints about the misleading statements about Benghazi are sure to reinforce the contrived narrative of Republicans as “racists” and “sexists”, aren’t they? ?And they certainly used that and similar fabrications about every criticism about Obama, Holder etc., etc., to help win this last election, didn’t they?

      But pointing out the inherent racism and sexism in liberals won’t work?? ?If it educates even one minority about the diet of lies and propaganda that they have been fed by Democrats, it is a first step. ?And if “doing what it takes” requires the lying, cheating and fraud the characterizes the Democrat Party, then we may have to do some soul searching to counter it.

  8. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I do get a kick out of people who address a subject other then the topic of the post. I’m not sure whether it is because they don’t want to face the divisive nature of the Democrats or they just like their own subject better. Anyways, ?there are plenty of responses to the topic Steve wrote about, and I am always intrigued by the varied responses to it.?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Steve goes to great lengths to present topics in a cogent and concise manner and I appreciate that.? I have suggested that with divergent opinions possible suggestions be offered. This is a continuing issue and one that I try to ignore. It is one thing to cite facts? and identify problems, it is quite another to offer solutions. That is the point of this blog for me. What can be done?
      There is a Yiddish word, “Kvetch” . . . irritating, and ultimately not helpful nor is it on the interest of the topic Steve worked to post.
      Discussion?
      ?

Comments are closed.