Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

The really damaging parts of AHCA don't phase in until after 2018 I thought? And old racist white people will still blame Obama.

Old racist white people always vote republican so that doesn't really affect anything. Independents are who they should be caring about, and their approval of the AHCA is in the 20% range.

 

[Zips]

Assuming Trump makes it to the next election, runs again, there's no election oddities that somehow slides things his way, and he loses, his personality dictates that he go out with a personal save - like a backhanded compliment where he congratulates his opponent on a hard fought campaign, but then states or implies he wasn't really giving his full effort and that's why he lost. Sprinkle in maybe some insults like saying things will get bad under a Democrat president, and/or vague threats like how he and his supporters will be watching. That would be his concession speech.

I hope he is long gone before then.

Ossoff needs to win. It ultimately means shit all if people are still voting Republican in enough numbers to get by. All that's happened and your population still can't help but vote for whoever has an R by their name. That problem is continuing.

 

[Tamanon]

I think at the end of the day, the Ossoff victory or loss will be relatively meaningless this early in the election cycle.

No matter what, there'll be some good lessons learned.

 

[Y2Kev]

If you want to stop AHCA and stop the rest of Trump's shitty agenda, Ossoff needs to win.

 

[Plinko]

CNN Politics‏Verified account @CNNPolitics 4m4 minutes ago

GOP @RepCharlieDent says he agrees with Trump's description of the House health care bill as "mean" #CNNSOTU

That's a step, I guess.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

If Republicans pass Obamacare repeal, what is the best case scenario on how quickly democrats could put it back in place and get those 20+ million people insured again?

 

[nature boy]

Trump won by 1% but Tom Price, who was the rep for the district before he joined the administration, won by 23%. Don't be misleading.

Huh? Trump won by 1, no incumbent, massive money, anything but a win is a disappointment

So the benchmark is the previous house race with a 12-year incumbent? C'mon

Price is not on the ballot, Dems didn't really invest time and effort in his 2016 reelection, I don't think the standard should be "hey we made up 20-odd points"

GA-06 is the kind of districts Dems need to win if they're going to get back the House majority, so only a win should do.

 

[kess]

Trump makes Dent look like the nebbish ineffectual that he really is. Trump straight up verbally abused him a few weeks ago.

 

[nature boy]

Why does the media give Gingrich a platform?

 

[RustyNails]

Ossof needs to win for the sole reason that he's a good progressive who ran a gaffe-free campaign against one of the most mediocre GOP candidates. The fact that its a Republican district is a handicap, but we need to overcome that handicap everywhere in 2018 if we want to take back the house.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Ossof needs to win for the sole reason that he's a good progressive who ran a gaffe-free campaign against one of the most mediocre GOP candidates. The fact that its a Republican district is a handicap, but we need to overcome that handicap everywhere in 2018 if we want to take back the house.

Also, Karen Handel is a slimy shit.

 

[Diablos]

Trump hasn't been at 50 in Raaaaas since like, April. Meh

 

[nature boy]

Trump hasn't been at 50 in Raaaaas since like, April. Meh

7 point bump in 3 days

#legit

 

[Valhelm]

If you want to stop AHCA and stop the rest of Trump's shitty agenda, Ossoff needs to win.

Right. As a minority party, the Democrats can't afford to cede a single congressional seat. Early elections are vitally important because they lay the groundwork for 2018 and can potentially raise morale.

Quist and Thompson were bitterly missed opportunities.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Right. As a minority party, the Democrats can't afford to cede a single congressional seat. Early elections are vitally important because they lay the groundwork for 2018 and can potentially raise morale.

Quist and Thompson were bitterly missed opportunities.

This makes no sense. Wasting resources on a lost cause just means you have fewer available when truly competitive races come up. Quist raised over $7M dollars and still lost by six points. If the national Democratic groups had invested another $3 or $4M he losses by three or four instead. How does that help anyone?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Assuming Trump makes it to the next election, runs again, there's no election oddities that somehow slides things his way, and he loses, his personality dictates that he go out with a personal save - like a backhanded compliment where he congratulates his opponent on a hard fought campaign, but then states or implies he wasn't really giving his full effort and that's why he lost. Sprinkle in maybe some insults like saying things will get bad under a Democrat president, and/or vague threats like how he and his supporters will be watching. That would be his concession speech.

I hope he is long gone before then.

Ossoff needs to win. It ultimately means shit all if people are still voting Republican in enough numbers to get by. All that's happened and your population still can't help but vote for whoever has an R by their name. That problem is continuing.

There isn't actually something that prevents you from getting primaried as President.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Ossof needs to win for the sole reason that he's a good progressive who ran a gaffe-free campaign against one of the most mediocre GOP candidates. The fact that its a Republican district is a handicap, but we need to overcome that handicap everywhere in 2018 if we want to take back the house.

Is this being echoed elsewhere on the internet? Like reddit, etc because I really can't tell if ithis is being properly emphasized by the DNC.

 

[Holmes]

Fwiw GA-06 is not a district that Dems need to win to take back the House. Winning it is closer to a 40-50 seat gain in the House provided Dems win every seat that has a PVI of R+8 and less.

 

[kirblar]

Is this being echoed elsewhere on the internet? Like reddit, etc because I really can't tell if ithis is being properly emphasized by the DNC.

What the hell does the DNC have to do with an off year special election?

We have massive interest in candidates elsewhere but in most states this is NOT an election year.

 

[Pixieking]

Actually he has :

Oh, nice... genuinely thought he was being his usual egotistical sociopathic self, so genuinely pleased to see that.

 

[TestOfTide]

Ossof needs to win that race for a few reasons:

1) Trump only won it by 1.5%. Ossof not winning basically means that the suburban trends aren't happening fast enough.

2) Karen Handle isn't a very good opponent. Handle is supposed to be the candidate that gets Trump's fanbase least energized and who sucks at messaging.

3) Trump's opposition is supposed to be energized these days.

4) With Trump basically nationalizing the Southern Strategy, it is important that we start making the southern states competitive.

 

[SJurgenson]

Fwiw GA-06 is not a district that Dems need to win to take back the House. Winning it is closer to a 40-50 seat gain in the House provided Dems win every seat that has a PVI of R+8 and less.

This is correct.

Ossof needs to win for the sole reason that he's a good progressive who ran a gaffe-free campaign against one of the most mediocre GOP candidates. The fact that its a Republican district is a handicap, but we need to overcome that handicap everywhere in 2018 if we want to take back the house.

Let's not set up the Ossof result as a binary 'things are great'/'things are terrible' situation, because it is not.

Ossof losing, but being close to winning is still a great result -- as it shows a swing towards democrats that will hopefully lead to winning back the house, as said above.

People here are acting as if it's somehow a horrible, apocalyptic outcome if he loses, and that's just wrong. These sorts of special elections are never supposed to be competitive. Wailing that the end is near if Ossof does not win is like claiming basketball is doomed if the Washington Generals don't beat the Harlem Globetrotters.

The entire point of picking Tom Price is that his seat is safe. The fact that Ossof gets anywhere close to winning is an amazing accomplishment to shout from the rooftops.

People peddling this binary crap are just setting up everyone to be disappointed and dispirited if he loses, when we should celebrate every percentage point closer he gets to winning, even if he does not cross the line.

All that said, there is some truth to the fact that there is a big difference if he does win versus if he loses by 0.1% -- but that difference is in appearances, and the fact the blue-shift is much more obvious to congressional republicans, and they will fear the blue wave that is coming.

But if he loses by 0.1%, the blue wave is still there -- just minutely smaller.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Fwiw GA-06 is not a district that Dems need to win to take back the House. Winning it is closer to a 40-50 seat gain in the House provided Dems win every seat that has a PVI of R+8 and less.

GA-06 is the type of district that Democrats will need to win going forward. It's one of the fastest changing districts in the country. It's R+8 now, but could go R+3 by 2020.

Its much different than Kansas and Montana which were seats where Thomson and Quist may not even have won in 2018 if they won the special election. Long term importance for GA-06 is the difference.

 

[SJurgenson]

GA-06 is the type of district that Democrats will need to win going forward. It's one of the fastest changing districts in the country. It's R+8 now, but could go R+3 by 2020.

Its much different than Kansas and Montana which were seats where Thomson and Quist may not even have won in 2018 if they won the special election. Long term importance for GA-06 is the difference.

What does the rate of change have to do with a district voting in 2 days? If Ossof loses by a few votes on Tuesday, that still leads to a Democratic win if the 2020 projection is correct.

This election is not a binary win/lose result, except for that single seat. Any gain is still a gain, if you think it can be reasonable extrapolated to the future.

 

[TestOfTide]

GA-06 is the type of district that Democrats will need to win going forward. It's one of the fastest changing districts in the country. It's R+8 now, but could go R+3 by 2020.

Its much different than Kansas and Montana which were seats where Thomson and Quist may not even have won in 2018 if they won the special election. Long term importance for GA-06 is the difference.

Exactly. GA-6 is important because everything we are seeing about recent elections tells us that our path to winning more elections involves maximizing urban turnout and flipping the suburbs more towards democrats, because rural white counties are just not budging at all. GA-6 represents that path because is has so much suburban area.

It's also important because Georgia is a Southern State and with the Southern Strategy now going national for the GOP, we need to go back to where this strategy started and prove that it has a weakness. If we can prove that Southern suburbs are flippable then we can have our own Southern Strategy.

What does the rate of change have to do with a district voting in 2 days? If Ossof loses by a few votes on Tuesday, that still leads to a Democratic win if the 2020 projection is correct.

This election is not a binary win/lose result, except for that single seat. Any gain is still a gain, if you think it can be reasonable extrapolated to the future.

Because it's not just about the Presidential election in 2020. It's also about:

- Winning back more US House seats in 2018 and securing them by 2020.
- Fending off the GOP from winning too many Senate seats in 2018 so that we can conceivably win back the Senate in 2020
- Winning many of the numerous governor seats that will be up for reelection next year.
- Winning many of the state legislature seats in the next few years

And frankly, every election that we have had lately has shown that the Rural White areas WILL NOT BUDGE, which means we have to win with a combination of 3 methods:

- Maximizing Urban turnout
- Flipping as many suburban voters as possible
- depressing Trump fans into not voting when possible (not to be confused with actual voter suppression, I only mean psychological tactics).

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

What does the rate of change have to do with a district voting in 2 days? If Ossof loses by a few votes on Tuesday, that still leads to a Democratic win if the 2020 projection is correct.

This election is not a binary win/lose result, except for that single seat. Any gain is still a gain, if you think it can be reasonable extrapolated to the future.

Because GA-06 is the exact type of district Democrats will need to win going forward and winning it early can help increase the rate at which the district changes. Incumbency matters.

It's not a disaster if Ossoff loses, but Democrats need to be able to win in this type of district when the president has approval ratings in the 30s and tens of millions of dollars have been fundraised for Ossoff.

 

[Plinko]

Because GA-06 is the exact type of district Democrats will need to win going forward and winning it early can help increase the rate at which the district changes. Incumbency matters.

It's not a disaster if Ossoff loses, but Democrats need to be able to win in this type of district when the president has approval ratings in the 30s and tens of millions of dollars have been fundraised for Ossoff.

Right. At some point, democrats have to start turning these into wins. That time is getting close.

 

[Ogodei]

GA-6 is one of the fastest D-trending districts, per Cook, and per Cook, the fastest-trending districts are pretty much all sun-belt suburbs (and a few places like Los Angeles which were blue but are getting even bluer), so it is a must-win to prove that we can turn those trends into gains next year.

The fastest R-trending districts are pretty much all in the Upper Midwest, West Virginia (although there it's just the case of the last of the Dixiecrat strongholds falling), and Pennsylvania.

So Ossoff's victory tells us a bit about how quickly we can count on flipping cities and suburbs across the Southern US while we lose the small-town midwest.

 

[Macho Madness]

Pin your hopes and dreams on affluent suburbs and you're bound to be disappointed almost every time.

 

[Ether_Snake]

As long as the Dems have people like Bernie and others to fuel his rants against the party the Republicans will get an extra boost they wouldn't have otherwise. Same thing that happened with Ron Paul though, it will go away when they get their own condos/houses and have kids.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Pin your hopes and dreams on affluent suburbs and you're bound to be disappointed almost every time.

Yeah, we should pin them on districts that have been consistently shifting away from voting Democratic for years :lol The blue wall is a blue wall until it's not, as we saw last year!

Sounds like you're going to be the one who's disappointed in the future, tbh

 

[Ogodei]

Pin your hopes and dreams on affluent suburbs and you're bound to be disappointed almost every time.

That's where the numbers are, because those suburbs are diversifying and because the GOP is getting too brazenly stupid for college educated folks to go along with.

 

[kirblar]

Pin your hopes and dreams on affluent suburbs and you're bound to be disappointed almost every time.

Virginia says hi. As do (in part) the recent Labour results.

You can't pin your hopes on a bunch of rural people who may like social benefits a lot, but like denying them to minorities even more.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The Sun Belt needs to replace the Midwest very quickly in terms of Democratic votes. I don't think Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin are all that far gone in presidential races, but Ohio and Iowa might be. Missouri and Indiana which were previously winnable under the right circumstances definitely seem to be. Eventually the Midwestern blue states are just going to be Minnesota and Illinois, and even Minnesota had a Republican lean last cycle.

It was my (and many others') thought that while the trends in those states were good for Republicans, we still had another cycle or two to count them among the blue wall. Not so! While writing them off in 2020 would be foolish, we need to be laying the foundation in states like Arizona and Georgia to turn close losses into clear wins to counteract dumbasses in Michigan not voting or voting Stein.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

The main reason GA-06 is changing so fast anyway is because of a growing minority population. It's not like it's all rich white people.

But it's not the white working class so some people take issue I guess.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The main reason GA-06 is changing so fast anyway is because of a growing minority population. It's not like it's all rich white people.

But it's not the white working class so some people take issue I guess.

Ironically* because the people who lambast Clinton and the DNC for taking WWC for granted (not a totally invalid criticism but just one piece of the puzzle) have no problem taking minorities for granted and suddenly finding themselves on the flip side of the "lesser of two evils" argument.

"So what if Bernie doesn't connect to minorities? Who are they going to vote for? TRUMP?"

*not really because irony is what you wouldn't expect

 

[SJurgenson]

Because it's not just about the Presidential election in 2020. It's also about:

- Winning back more US House seats in 2018 and securing them by 2020.
- Fending off the GOP from winning too many Senate seats in 2018 so that we can conceivably win back the Senate in 2020
- Winning many of the numerous governor seats that will be up for reelection next year.
- Winning many of the state legislature seats in the next few years

And frankly, every election that we have had lately has shown that the Rural White areas WILL NOT BUDGE, which means we have to win with a combination of 3 methods:

- Maximizing Urban turnout
- Flipping as many suburban voters as possible
- depressing Trump fans into not voting when possible (not to be confused with actual voter suppression, I only mean psychological tactics).

Sure, but again -- it's not a binary result. There are shades between 'total and utter failure' and 'unqualified win'.

A lot of people here are acting as if him actually winning the seat is the only thing that matters for the future, and that is not true -- how close he gets matters, and it's self-destructive to portray this election's possible results as either amazing or terrible.

That's my point -- there there seems to be a lot of simplification and bullshit framing of this election result. If you count yourself a Democrat, you only help the Republican narrative by spouting the binary result nonsense.

In the UK, Labour 'lost' and the Torries 'won', because the Torries have more seats-- but that's obviously a stilted view of the UK result, as it was expected Labour would lose seats and Torries would gain tons -- but the opposite happened.

People in the UK election thread were ecstatic that Labour did as well as they did, even if they technically 'lost'. It seems that people here were be starting their doomsday cults if Ossof loses in a R+8 district by two votes.

 

[TestOfTide]

Pin your hopes and dreams on affluent suburbs and you're bound to be disappointed almost every time.

First off it's not the affluent suburbs that we are targeting. It's the ones with higher percentages of college educated voters and/or higher rates of diversity.

Second, Suburbs helping democrats win isn't anything new.

Sure, but again -- it's not a binary result. There are shades between 'total and utter failure' and 'unqualified win'.

A lot of people here are acting as if him actually winning the seat is the only thing that matters for the future, and that is not true -- how close he gets matters, and it's self-destructive to portray this election's possible results as either amazing or terrible.

That's my point -- there there seems to be a lot of simplification and bullshit framing of this election result. If you count yourself a Democrat, you only help the Republican narrative by spouting the binary result nonsense.

In the UK, Labour 'lost' and the Torries 'won', because the Torries have more seats-- but that's obviously a stilted view of the UK result, as it was expected Labour would lose seats and Torries would gain tons -- but the opposite happened.

People in the UK election thread were ecstatic that Labour did as well as they did, even if they technically 'lost'. It seems that people here were be starting their doomsday cults if Ossof loses in a R+8 district by two votes.

Point taken that it's not binary. However we aren't going to start actually scaring the GOP with ALMOST winning.

And to your point about the Tories, the difference there is that:

1) Labour managed to win so many seats that the Tories managed to lose their majority and will only be able to pass ANYTHING at all by making a deal with the DUP votes.

2) The only reason that the Tories even have the opportunity to have a pseudo majority by forming a coalition with the DUP is because the SNP screwed up and allowed the Tories to win a bunch of seats in Scotland.

The GOP should be at a huge disadvantage right now because they have a very unpopular POTUS in office and we have been seeing lots of liberal and progressive activism take place. When the sort of stuff was happening on the other side, it led to the GOP winning huge in 2010 and 2014, so Dems need to be able to capitalize on these sort of factors as well.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sure, but again -- it's not a binary result. There are shades between 'total and utter failure' and 'unqualified win'.

A lot of people here are acting as if him actually winning the seat is the only thing that matters for the future, and that is not true -- how close he gets matters, and it's self-destructive to portray this election's possible results as either amazing or terrible.

That's my point -- there there seems to be a lot of simplification and bullshit framing of this election result. If you count yourself a Democrat, you only help the Republican narrative by spouting the binary result nonsense.

In the UK, Labour 'lost' and the Torries 'won', because the Torries have more seats-- but that's obviously a stilted view of the UK result, as it was expected Labour would lose seats and Torries would gain tons -- but the opposite happened.

People in the UK election thread were ecstatic that Labour did as well as they did, even if they technically 'lost'. It seems that people here were be starting their doomsday cults if Ossof loses in a R+8 district by two votes.

I think the problem is the expectation is for Ossoff to win now. He's never trailed Handel in a poll, he came tantalizingly close to securing it in the primary, and he's raised obscene amounts of money.

I get the logic here but it seems like it applies more to seats like MT-AL, KS-4 or SC-5 - deep red Republican seats no one would have given us a chance at winning. If we had won them, that would be super! But losing them isn't the end of the world especially if those trends held in marginal seats.

GA-6 on the other hand (a marginal seat) I would absolutely put into like a top 30 of the seats we'd need to win back for a House majority. Choking here would be harder to spin, even if there's a path elsewhere. Hell, even if we end up winning the seat in 2018.

Whatever, media operates in 24 hour cycles anyway. Win or lose I don't expect the euphoria or disappointment to last long. I also wouldn't expect an Ossoff win to significantly derail the Republican legislative agenda the way some people have theorized, though even punting AHCA by a few weeks would be enough to kill it.

 

[SJurgenson]

Because GA-06 is the exact type of district Democrats will need to win going forward and winning it early can help increase the rate at which the district changes. Incumbency matters.

It's not a disaster if Ossoff loses, but Democrats need to be able to win in this type of district when the president has approval ratings in the 30s and tens of millions of dollars have been fundraised for Ossoff.

It's a R+8 district, it's not supposed to be winnable! It's R+8! There are 63 House seats held by Republicans that are <=R+7 or Even right now. If Ossoff loses by 2 votes, that still portends the Democrats taking back the house with a larger majority than the Republicans have now!

What expectation do you have, that every Republican will be voted out of office? I'm growing real tired of all this nonsense that people peddle here, turning any positive Democratic result into a loss because it wasn't 'good enough'.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

It's a R+8 district, it's not supposed to be winnable! It's R+8! There are 63 House seats held by Republicans that are <=R+7 or Even right now. If Ossoff loses by 2 votes, that still portends the Democrats taking back the house with a larger majority than the Republicans have now!

Sure, I'm not sure this is incompatible with what I'm saying. Ossoff losing by a tiny margin is still clearly a victory. Him winning is clearly a bigger one and a major step in starting to solidify GA-06 as a district that isn't R+8.

 

[PBY]

http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/

Just going to leave this here

Please don't kill me and or each other.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Good article outlining the benefits of an Ossoff win.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...kes-shape-in-a-georgia-special-election.html?

Democrats will be energized and good candidates likelier to jump in - senior Republicans might see it as an excuse to get out of Dodge.

http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/

Just going to leave this here

Please don't kill me and or each other.

I absolutely buy these numbers, I've just never been convinced they would hold up if Bernie was ever a serious candidate for anything. Hillary had 60% approval ratings post-SOS until she was a candidate.

Also that site's layout is supremely fucking annoying.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

http://resistancereport.com/politics/harvard-poll-bernie-supporters/

Just going to leave this here

Please don't kill me and or each other.

Bernie Sanders is more popular among demographics that are heavily Democratic (African-American, Hispanic) than ones that aren't (Whites). Not sure where the news is here.

It's not like it's "minority Democratic voters" vs "white Democratic voters." Most White people are Republican, so obviously his numbers with them will be lower than groups that are mostly Democratic.

 

[Vixdean]

Yeah, I agree with the general sentiment that a moral victory would be no victory at all in GA-6. This is a race Ossoff should win, full stop, or we may as well resign ourselves to at least 4 more years of Republican control.

 

[SJurgenson]

Yeah, I agree with the general sentiment that a moral victory would be no victory at all in GA-6. This is a race Ossoff should win, full stop, or we may as well resign ourselves to at least 4 more years of Republican control.

Yeah, that's just not how the math works. But feel free to feel all deflated because you couldn't be bothered to attempt to understand how gradeschool math works as applied to election results.

Quoting from the NYT article above:

Democratic officials argue that even a razor-thin defeat for Mr. Ossoff should be taken as an encouraging sign, but the party is under pressure to win. House Democrats only reluctantly, and minimally, competed in special elections earlier in the year in Kansas and Montana. But they poured millions into this race, even as Mr. Ossoff largely ran from the party's agenda and leadership.

”My concern is that we might raise the bar too much, the expectations," said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat. ”Look guys, these are seats we shouldn't even be playing in."

Republicans are not even bothering to play down the consequences of losing.

”We all know this is a harbinger of national politics," Mr. Perdue said, ”and the world is looking, the nation is looking."

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Yeah, that's just not how the math works.

Quoting from the NYT article above:

A district where Trump barely won by 1% is a district we shouldn't even be competing in?

Sure, Price beat a noname candidate with zero institutional support, but he's not running again. This is absolutely a district we should be competing in.

 

[TestOfTide]

It's a R+8 district, it's not supposed to be winnable! It's R+8! There are 63 House seats held by Republicans that are <=R+7 or Even right now. If Ossoff loses by 2 votes, that still portends the Democrats taking back the house with a larger majority than the Republicans have now!

What expectation do you have, that every Republican will be voted out of office? I'm growing real tired of all this nonsense that people peddle here, turning any positive Democratic result into a loss because it wasn't 'good enough'.

I feel like the R+8 part is VERY deceptive, because it doesn't paint the full picture. Yes, Tom Price won by 22 points, but Trump only won it by 1.5 points. The GOP as whole has been fully embracing Trump ever since he won, so this race should be looked at more through the fact that Trump only won it by 1.5 points, especially because that lines up a lot more with what we saw in the primary results earlier this year where Ossof won 48-49%.

 

[SJurgenson]

A district where Trump barely won by 1% is a district we shouldn't even be competing in?

Sure, Price beat a noname candidate with zero institutional support, but he's not running again. This is absolutely a district we should be competing in.

Considering Ossoff is not running for President in GA-6, I think the relevant metric is the fact the district has a R+8 PVI.

 

[Y2Kev]

Sorry, is that survey among democrats / self-identified democrats / democratic-leaning independents or everyone? If it's everyone, no kidding he's more popular amongst minorities than amongst white people. So is every democrat on the planet. From what I can tell, it's everyone.

edit: Except White Generic Clone Man Jason Kander