You just can't make this stuff up...yes, believe it or not, the liberals at the Huffington post are actually hosting a symposium that tries to figure out whether the Democratic party should continue trying to appeal to white males or not.

The general consensus seems to be against the idea, but not everyone that Team HuffPo invited to comment agrees.

THOMAS SCHALLER, Dept. of Political Science, University of Maryland

In the past half-century white men fell from about half of all voters to a third, and while that is still a significant chunk of the electorate, in business terms that's called a declining market share. Neither party, at this point, would be wise to invest too much attention or effort cultivating their votes, especially since large swaths of white males are not swing voters anyway.

Because of rising non-white populations and what seems like an ever-growing gender gap in turnout fueled by women out-participating men, white men simply cast a smaller and smaller share of the vote with each passing election. Second, within the white male vote there are large subgroups already voting reliably Republican, like Stan Greenberg's "privileged men" of economic means, or reliably Democratic, like gay men or unionized teachers. The two key swing subgroups are blue-collar cultural voters and white Catholics, which often overlap.

If a corporate marketing executive doing long-term planning recommended to his CEO a massive push to capture white male consumers, she'd tell him to clean out his desk by the end of the day because white men simply are not a "growth market." We ought to be equally skeptical of political advisers making similarly myopic recommendations--especially those advising Democrats, who are advantaged by gender and racial growth patterns.

There you have it: white males "simply are not a 'growth market,'" so it's a waste of time for the Democrats to even try to appeal to them. Give it another decade or three and this will probably be the majority opinion in the Democratic Party.