I am a big fan of irony. I’m not sure most people understand the true meaning of “irony.” It is frequently used when the right word should have been “sarcasm” or “justice” or even simple juxtaposition. In fact “irony” has been incorrectly used in the place of “sarcasm” so much that many dictionaries have the same definition for both. Which is ironic. ;)

The word “irony,” especially used in a literary or analytical sense, means “an outcome that is incongruous and undesired compared to the intended outcome.” Many definitions use “opposite” instead of “incongruous” but I prefer “incongruous” because that includes opposite but also covers outcomes that are simply completely unpredictable. Many ironic situations do not end up with an “opposite” outcomes, but all of them end up with outcomes that are in some way contrary to the original goals.

Here’s an example in the Democratic nomination process.

For decades Democrats have played identity politics. They have systematically carved out chunks of the general population, labeled them, assigned them roles and played up to their individual narrow desires in order to win their allegiance and therefore their votes. In doing this the Democrat party has effectively marginalized the largest single group of voters in their party. This group is the “white male” vote. In fact Democrats are so out of touch with this group, and so dismissive of them, that they routinely describe them as “Angry White Males.”

In the past few months I have seen story after story about the Democrats need to mobilize the black vote, the female vote, the gay vote, the hispanic vote, all the typical identity politics groups. But I have heard virtually nothing about the white male vote. Hillary has gone overboard attempting to pander to the hispanic vote. Obama seems to have the black vote neatly tied up. They have been fighting over the female vote most recently, with Obama making big gains in Texas, enough that Hillary is in danger of losing Texas because she lost the woman vote.

But the white male vote has been virtually ignored. And that is the largest group in the party, and it has been steadily moving towards Obama for two months. In some polls white male Democrats prefer Obama over Hillary by as much as a 2 to 1 margin. In virtually every poll for remaining primaries Obama has a commanding lead in the white male vote.

This is one reason I’ve argued with Drax that Hillary’s supposed commanding lead among hispanics in Texas is not going to save her. If the white male vote continues to shift towards Obama, there simply aren’t enough hispanics in Texas to overcome the tide.

So why is this ironic?

Because the Democratic party has been systematically and purposefully attempting to marginalize the white males in their party to the benefit of the victim groups they can use as voting blocs, and now in what they claim to be the most important election in decades, their party’s choice for that election is between a female and a black man, and their candidate will most likely be chosen by white males.

And why is that result potentially counter to Democrat’s goals?

Because there is some question if the white males who voted for Obama in the primaries will stick with Obama when they have a white male to vote for in the general election.

I predict you will start to see stories about this situation over the next few weeks as Democrats start to wonder if the “Reagan Democrats” (mostly white males) will defect to McCain in the general election, just as they did in 1980 and 1984.

But again the irony is that there is nothing they can do about it. They have kicked that dog for so long, there is no way they can convince white males that they are truly appreciated in time for the general election.

As I keep saying, this is a very interesting election. The general election may be even more fun.