• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Something to think about

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,824
Reaction score
14,128
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When it comes to demographics and how specific voter blocks voted, I found a few interesting facts.

First, nearly every demographic group showed more support for Obama in 2008, than they did Bush in 2004.... Including White people, rich people, and even White evangelicals (so much for the race card). But that's how it should have been after 8 years of Republicans, the public losing support for the war in Iraq, the dismal economy, a republican opponent who didn't have much support from his base, and the fact that Obama was an inspiring public speaker who represent a milestone in American politics if elected.

As for this election, nearly every demographic group supported Obama less this time, than they had in 2008, with a few curious exceptions. Once again, the fact Obama got less support this election is the way it should have been. His economic policies failed, he doubled the budget deficits over those of Bush, in every single year after promising to cut them in half, he ran up more national debt in in just over 3 year, than Bush had in 8 years, the unemployment rate was higher on election day, than it was when he took office, the real unemployment rate had stayed the same for 2 years while we were supposed to be in an economic recovery, the percent of eligible workers that had jobs was nearly 2% lower than the day he took office, his job creation levels were barely keeping up with population growth, the GDP was crawling at around 2% quarterly, the number of people on food stamps and government assistance was setting records and not slowing down, and average family incomes were down $4,000 a year during his presidency.

Other than the fact that Asians and Hispanics (I smell racism) actually increased their support significantly for the man, after such a dismal economic record, the only other thing that was puzzling was why he didn't lose far more support than he did from all the other demographic groups? He lost very little on no support from women, Catholics and people making less than $50k per year, and still had the overwhelming support of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, voters under 30, Jewish voters, and those making less than $30k per year.

The only voting demographics that diminished their support for Obama, anywhere close to proportionately compared to his job performance, were voters over 45, people who attended church weekly, White people, Jewish voters, along with folks from rural areas and small towns... That's it.

The last time an incumbent president up for reelection had such a dismal economic record, he was defeated in an electoral landslide, losing by 440 electoral votes, and 7 million popular votes... His name was Jimmy Carter.

So what in the hell changed in the last 32 years to the American electorate? Do we really have that many uninformed voters, or is it that a large percentage of them all the sudden lost touch with reality... Maybe people have become more selfish and self centered since 1980, and don't give a damn if the nations economy completely collapses, as long as they get their government checks and free cell phones... Or could it be that we're finally seeing who the real racists are in America?
 

Common

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
53
Reaction score
17
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think it reduces to one word: education. If you correlate voters with race and education, you'll find that educated white voters prefered Obama. The North East has a high percentage of educated people. The problem is states with a high percentage of uneducated white voters, like Alabama, who are fodder for the conservative noise machine and it's ugly rhetoric of xenophobia, scapegoating and race-baiting.
Way to generalize. Just because states vote republican doesn't mean they aren't educated. I'm conservative and am currently in college, and everyone in my family is college educated, lives in the South, and voted republican. In fact, the more educated I become, the more conservative I become.
 

Vallista

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
700
Reaction score
110
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Just adding on to the many statics about the election-

The highest white population all voted for Obama in ME 96%, VT 05%, IA 03%, and NH 93%.

Your thoughts
:july_4th:I like it. he didn't need the white vote to win. Now every republican is screaming bloody murder. lol
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,171
Reaction score
21,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
When it comes to demographics and how specific voter blocks voted, I found a few interesting facts.

First, nearly every demographic group showed more support for Obama in 2008, than they did Bush in 2004.... Including White people, rich people, and even White evangelicals (so much for the race card). But that's how it should have been after 8 years of Republicans, the public losing support for the war in Iraq, the dismal economy, a republican opponent who didn't have much support from his base, and the fact that Obama was an inspiring public speaker who represent a milestone in American politics if elected.

As for this election, nearly every demographic group supported Obama less this time, than they had in 2008, with a few curious exceptions. Once again, the fact Obama got less support this election is the way it should have been. His economic policies failed, he doubled the budget deficits over those of Bush, in every single year after promising to cut them in half, he ran up more national debt in in just over 3 year, than Bush had in 8 years, the unemployment rate was higher on election day, than it was when he took office, the real unemployment rate had stayed the same for 2 years while we were supposed to be in an economic recovery, the percent of eligible workers that had jobs was nearly 2% lower than the day he took office, his job creation levels were barely keeping up with population growth, the GDP was crawling at around 2% quarterly, the number of people on food stamps and government assistance was setting records and not slowing down, and average family incomes were down $4,000 a year during his presidency.

Other than the fact that Asians and Hispanics (I smell racism) actually increased their support significantly for the man, after such a dismal economic record, the only other thing that was puzzling was why he didn't lose far more support than he did from all the other demographic groups? He lost very little on no support from women, Catholics and people making less than $50k per year, and still had the overwhelming support of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, voters under 30, Jewish voters, and those making less than $30k per year.

The only voting demographics that diminished their support for Obama, anywhere close to proportionately compared to his job performance, were voters over 45, people who attended church weekly, White people, Jewish voters, along with folks from rural areas and small towns... That's it.

The last time an incumbent president up for reelection had such a dismal economic record, he was defeated in an electoral landslide, losing by 440 electoral votes, and 7 million popular votes... His name was Jimmy Carter.

So what in the hell changed in the last 32 years to the American electorate? Do we really have that many uninformed voters, or is it that a large percentage of them all the sudden lost touch with reality... Maybe people have become more selfish and self centered since 1980, and don't give a damn if the nations economy completely collapses, as long as they get their government checks and free cell phones... Or could it be that we're finally seeing who the real racists are in America?
Yes, yes, it has to be the voters.... it can't be a ****ty candidate like Romney. Which was the 4th from last drop out of the race the first time he ran. The guy conservatives were calling liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-illegal, that's the guy who decided 4 years later to be a conservative and did a complete 180 on everything he was lauded for by Liberals and hated for by Cons. Obviously, the reason Romney lost is not because he was a ****ty 4th rate candidate out of a ****ty group to begin with. It was because voters are stupid. Keep it up Grim, with that attitude, you'll bag us a win in 2016.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,824
Reaction score
14,128
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, yes, it has to be the voters.... it can't be a ****ty candidate like Romney. Which was the 4th from last drop out of the race the first time he ran. The guy conservatives were calling liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-illegal, that's the guy who decided 4 years later to be a conservative and did a complete 180 on everything he was lauded for by Liberals and hated for by Cons. Obviously, the reason Romney lost is not because he was a ****ty 4th rate candidate out of a ****ty group to begin with. It was because voters are stupid. Keep it up Grim, with that attitude, you'll bag us a win in 2016.
That's why every poll taken from mid October on, that asked voters which candidate they though would better handle the economy, chose Romney over Obama. He was neck and neck with Obama the entire month prior to the election, so your estimation of Romney just doesn't ring very true.

The economy was not just the top issue, it was virtually the only issue.
Romney was seen as the candidate better qualified to handle the economy.
Obama's economic philosophies proved to be misguided
Obama's economic policies proved totally ineffective.
Obama's overall handling of the economy proved a failure.
Obama's first term didn't earn him a Reagan or Clinton style reelection, it earned him a Jimmy Carter style defeat.

Say what you will, but no matter how hard you try you'll never be able to justify minority voters giving Obama even more support in this election, when he had such a dismal record his first term and total failed to achieve results on the most important issue facing the country over the last 5 years.

Naaaa... It couldn't be the people voting.
 

TheNextEra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
That's why every poll taken from mid October on, that asked voters which candidate they though would better handle the economy, chose Romney over Obama.
Yeah, it couldn't be that the polls were wrong or innacurrate could it?

The economy was not just the top issue, it was virtually the only issue.
Sorry, but no, it wasn't virtually the ONLY issue. Only in YOUR mind and Romneybots was it virtually the ONLY issue.

Naaaa... It couldn't be the people voting.

It couldn't be Romney's 47% comment
It couldn't be Romney's support of other politicians comments that insulted women.
It couldn't be the GOPs archaic stance on social issues.
It couldn't be Romney's fault
It couldn't be the GOPs fault.


It must be the voters right?
 

Common

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
53
Reaction score
17
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yeah, it couldn't be that the polls were wrong or innacurrate could it?



Sorry, but no, it wasn't virtually the ONLY issue. Only in YOUR mind and Romneybots was it virtually the ONLY issue.




It couldn't be Romney's 47% comment
It couldn't be Romney's support of other politicians comments that insulted women.
It couldn't be the GOPs archaic stance on social issues.
It couldn't be Romney's fault
It couldn't be the GOPs fault.


It must be the voters right?
Romney clearly wasn't the best choice for the GOP, but with that said, I'm still amazed someone with only 2 years experience as a senator (and at that he wasn't even a great one) is our President.
 

TheNextEra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Romney clearly wasn't the best choice for the GOP, but with that said, I'm still amazed someone with only 2 years experience as a senator (and at that he wasn't even a great one) is our President.
Given the GOP choices that they have put up, no, I'm not suprised in the least.

IMO, if the GOP put up a socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate they would win in a landslide.
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Honestly, if you follow my posts on DP you will find obvious spelling mistakes. You? Not so much. If English isn't your first language I'm good with that. If English is your first language, you should not be posting here. Either way, what you post here is irrelevant
You can save your insults, I really don't care what you think about my spelling. With posts like above you are totally irrelevant. Got anything else you want to bitch about?
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Given the GOP choices that they have put up, no, I'm not suprised in the least.

IMO, if the GOP put up a socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate they would win in a landslide.
You mean a liberal running against a liberal, and then change from being a liberal to a conservative. Lest see how that works in reality, give all the free stuff you can to anyone, then try and take it away because you can't pay for it. I don't think so.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NEVER, I don't think so. Like I said about the same as you.
Nope. I don't recall ever making such a sweeping generalization. I kind of have a rule against it. And if I ever did, at least I'd know it was stupid to do.
 

TheNextEra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You mean a liberal running against a liberal, and then change from being a liberal to a conservative. Lest see how that works in reality, give all the free stuff you can to anyone, then try and take it away because you can't pay for it. I don't think so.
The biggest turnoff from conservatives that I know was the focus on social conservatism. Say what you will, but social conservatism is on the downturn.

But hey, continue losing elections, that will show them. :roll:
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nope. I don't recall ever making such a sweeping generalization. I kind of have a rule against it. And if I ever did, at least I'd know it was stupid to do.
Call it what you will, but my post remains, and I stand by it.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Call it what you will, but my post remains, and I stand by it.
Many stand behind wrong and silly statements, sadly, but that doesn't change what it is. :coffeepap
 

Kal'Stang

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,747
Reaction score
22,572
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You mean a liberal running against a liberal, and then change from being a liberal to a conservative. Lest see how that works in reality, give all the free stuff you can to anyone, then try and take it away because you can't pay for it. I don't think so.
Bold: This is exactly why the GOP is demonized. They want to reduce the welfare state. Something that is going to have to happen sooner or later if we are to get out of debt.
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many stand behind wrong and silly statements, sadly, but that doesn't change what it is. :coffeepap
Speak for yourself when it come to silly statements. I've seen more than I want too.
 

Born Free

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Sonny and Nice
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The biggest turnoff from conservatives that I know was the focus on social conservatism. Say what you will, but social conservatism is on the downturn.

But hey, continue losing elections, that will show them. :roll:
I already explained and I repeat,

"You mean a liberal running against a liberal, and then change from being a liberal to a conservative. Lest see how that works in reality, give all the free stuff you can to anyone, then try and take it away because you can't pay for it. I don't think so."

Lose elections to politicians that promise free stuff, it'll happen every time. We've become an entitlement society and of course the majority wants more free stuff. This will go on until we are at the point of fiscal collapse like many countries in Europe. Where the people march in the streets chanting "where are my entitlements and free stuff" sorry we can't pay for them anymore. Under Obama we are headed to 20+ trillion in our national debt, but to liberals there is never a end to the money supply.
 

TheNextEra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I already explained and I repeat,

"You mean a liberal running against a liberal, and then change from being a liberal to a conservative. Lest see how that works in reality, give all the free stuff you can to anyone, then try and take it away because you can't pay for it. I don't think so."

Lose elections to politicians that promise free stuff, it'll happen every time. We've become an entitlement society and of course the majority wants more free stuff. This will go on until we are at the point of fiscal collapse like many countries in Europe. Where the people march in the streets chanting "where are my entitlements and free stuff" sorry we can't pay for them anymore. Under Obama we are headed to 20+ trillion in our national debt, but to liberals there is never a end to the money supply.
You are assuming that the reason Obama won was because of "free stuff". The reason Obama won was because social conservativsm is on the downturn.

Until you understand that, continue to lose elections.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you misinterpreted my comment, which is partially my fault, because upon rereading it, i wasn't as clear as i hoped to be.

the intent of my comment was this : it amazes me how much energy all humans waste worrying about how much or little melanin someone has in their skin. it wasn't directed exclusively at one side or the other. all races have an instinctive apprehension of people who look different for a very specific reason : for tens of thousands of years, if you saw a bunch of humans who didn't look like you coming over the hill, they probably weren't coming to play Yahtzee and have a few beers around the campfire. with the end of geographic isolation for the vast majority of human beings and the strength of the mating instinct, however, i expect that within a few thousand years, we all won't look that different anyway.

sorry if it seemed that i was attacking conservatives exclusively. i was mostly making an observation about humanity in general. i suppose some people didn't vote for Obama partially due to race, but i expect most didn't because of ideology, or their perception of what they fear his ideology might be. also, both sides are still substituting hyperpartisan hyperbole for actual ideological debate, and that's a big part of the reason why we can't have a national debate about anything without it turning into a soccer riot.
Again you are dismissing instincts as irrational and simplistically assigning geographical isolation as the determining factor. Instead, it may be the difference between predators and producers. In fact, the isolated may be fugitives from justice, continually trying to raid those who produce more from Nature. That makes more sense than believing a tribe would choose inhospitable territory as a place to settle down in. So even with geographical isolation, it's still a chicken and egg problem.
 

PrometheusBound

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When it comes to demographics and how specific voter blocks voted, I found a few interesting facts.

the number of people on food stamps and government assistance was setting records and not slowing down, and average family incomes were down $4,000 a year during his presidency.



So what in the hell changed in the last 32 years to the American electorate? Do we really have that many uninformed voters, or is it that a large percentage of them all the sudden lost touch with reality... Maybe people have become more selfish and self centered since 1980, and don't give a damn if the nations economy completely collapses, as long as they get their government checks and free cell phones...
Americans have finally seen the Invisible Hand as a slap to the face except for Greedheads and their pathetic brown-nosing flunkies. But the exposure of one myth has driven the people into the clutches of the Handout That Doesn't Let Go.
 
Top Bottom