While it may be true that racism provided a rallying factor for a disproportionately-represented-in-mid-terms group, discussing this as anything other than an academic point isn't going to accomplish much. Coming away from an election with the attitude of "well, if only the rest of society weren't homophobic woman-hating racists we would've won" is smug and intellectually lazy. More than that, though, is that it doesn't win many allies. Democrats win with a coalition of groups, and obsessively running on accusing people of -phobias and -isms does not win many elections.
Whites, and white men in particular, are more than capable of voting for Democrats (and liberals in general) when the argument is compelling and tailored to their interests in a clear and concise manner.
. It's time to get better at campaigning to all groups of people, and admit that Democrats did a really sh**ty job of selling their ideas (what ideas?) to voters in general, instead of circulating articles like this. You don't shame people into voting for you. That doesn't work.
Turnout matters, of course. If you had a more representative voting public I think results would've been more favorable. But not all of the people who stayed home did so because of voting laws. If they felt it was pointless, that's not their fault, it's the Democrats'.
Exactly!
