Actually, yes, the Democratic party can cast away the black vote and be viable. If you'll notice, Hispanics strongly went Democratic this past election - and there's a lot more of them than blacks. Not only that, but women did, too - and there's a heck of a lot more of them than blacks and Hispanics put together. Pretty much the only ethnic constituency that the GOP won was mature white men.
My top two are Wilson and Obama. It's a difficult task for those of us that are not presidential historians to accurately and objectively compare and contrast all of the presidents we've had.
Do you think the country was as divided under Reagan as it is under Obama? I honestly can't remember because I was very young when Reagan was president, but from everything I've learned, read and heard about him, he was a pretty good president who accomplished quite a bit with bipartisan support.
Actually, yes, the Democratic party can cast away the black vote and be viable. If you'll notice, Hispanics strongly went Democratic this past election - and there's a lot more of them than blacks. Not only that, but women did, too - and there's a heck of a lot more of them than blacks and Hispanics put together. Pretty much the only ethnic constituency that the GOP won was mature white men.
I would say it is questionable considering President Obama won by roughly 5 million votes. Blacks went for Obama by a 93-6% margin and they made up 13% of the total vote. There was approximately 127 million votes cast and 13% of those are would be 16.5 million. Now subtracting 93% of the black vote from President Obama's total, which is 15.4 million leaves the president with 50.6 million votes. Doing the same for Romney, 6% of the black vote which is 1 million votes and his total is 59.9 million votes. So without the black vote, President Obama would have got whopped. Fortunately, that didn't happen.
If Romney could have just gotten 4 million blacks to vote for him, a percentage of roughly 25% instead of 6% he would have won. This is a big Republican shortcoming when it comes to elections. Eisenhower did that twice 25% in 1952 and 40% in 1956, Even Richard Nixon garnered 32% of the black vote in 1960. But since then the best the Republicans could do is 15% of the black vote 1968 for Nixon again and 1976 for Gerald Ford.
What you're missing, however, is the electoral aspect - a heck of a lot of those blacks live in the deeply-red South, and if they had voted for Romney, it would have made zero difference in the overall outcome. If the black vote had been split 50-50 in blue states, maybe Obama would have lost Ohio, maybe Indiana...but that's probably about it. Maybe Pennsylvania, too. It would admittedly have been a heck of a lot closer.
But the key is, Obama lost the white vote by a significant amount, but it was his popularity among blacks and Hispanics that made up for that shortcoming. Even the conservative pundits were bewailing that fact by the next morning.
America is browning - that's a simple demographic fact. Any party that makes non-whites feel unwelcome (as the GOP (and particularly the TP) certainly has) is screwing itself over in the long run. Problem is, with very few exceptions (the victory of Thad Cochran in MS being one such exception), it's very difficult for Republicans to win primaries these days if they take a minority-friendly position.
The Democrats are minority-friendly in word and deed. The Republicans are perceived as not being minority-friendly. America is browning. Those three facts add up to some real problems for the GOP in the future.
Oh I know where you are coming from, I have the stats that I could figure out where each state would have fallen but that seems a bit like too much work. Here are the 4 closest states and the margin of victory:
Florida, 0.88% Black population 16%, if as you state the black population split 50-50, Florida goes to Romney
North Carolina, 2.04% Black population 26% but irrelevant because Romney won the state.
Ohio, 2.98% Black population 12% if as you state the black population split 50-50, Ohio goes to Romney
Virginia, 3.87% Black population 20%, if as you state the black population split 50-50, Virginia goes to Romney
That cuts the electoral vote from 332-306 to 272-266 for Obama. Pennsylvania has a black population of 11% and Obama won it by 5.39%, talk about a tight race if we used the 50-50 deal. There are a couple of other states that would have been pretty close. But the 2012 election would have revolved around Pennsylvania.
I love messing with this stuff. With 25% of the black vote, Romney wins the popular vote and those 3 states I mentioned above. He would not have needed 50% to carry Virginia, Florida and Ohio. 25% would have done the trick. As for the white vote in 2012 Romney won that 59-39, in 2008 McCain won it 55-43. Democratic Candidates with the largest share of the white vote are 1. Carter 48%, 2. Clinton 44% Obama 43%.
What you're missing, however, is the electoral aspect - a heck of a lot of those blacks live in the deeply-red South, and if they had voted for Romney, it would have made zero difference in the overall outcome. If the black vote had been split 50-50 in blue states, maybe Obama would have lost Ohio, maybe Indiana...but that's probably about it. Maybe Pennsylvania, too. It would admittedly have been a heck of a lot closer.
But the key is, Obama lost the white vote by a significant amount, but it was his popularity among blacks and Hispanics that made up for that shortcoming. Even the conservative pundits were bewailing that fact by the next morning.
America is browning - that's a simple demographic fact. Any party that makes non-whites feel unwelcome (as the GOP (and particularly the TP) certainly has) is screwing itself over in the long run. Problem is, with very few exceptions (the victory of Thad Cochran in MS being one such exception), it's very difficult for Republicans to win primaries these days if they take a minority-friendly position.
The Democrats are minority-friendly in word and deed. The Republicans are perceived as not being minority-friendly. America is browning. Those three facts add up to some real problems for the GOP in the future.
And in the 2016 election, Hillary will have this Democratic advantage with the minorities (if not to the same extent among blacks that Obama had), but she'll garner more of the white vote than Obama did...and she'll do especially well with the female vote. That's why I say that if she runs, she'll win in a landslide.
Of course I'm biased - I've still got two campaign posters for her downstairs in my storage room.
And in the 2016 election, Hillary will have this Democratic advantage with the minorities (if not to the same extent among blacks that Obama had), but she'll garner more of the white vote than Obama did...and she'll do especially well with the female vote. That's why I say that if she runs, she'll win in a landslide.
Of course I'm biased - I've still got two campaign posters for her downstairs in my storage room.
As governor in 1999, GWB deregulated Texas electricity and set renewable energy targets. Just this past March 26, Texas set a new record for instantaneous wind generation, producing 10,300 megawatts, enough to power 5 million homes. And the TEA party and Koch want to shut it down .
America is 'browning' and the browns like 'left wing' policies? Why would they want that?
Why would you vote for Hillary Clinton?
The very fact that you would ask that question says quite a bit about you as a person.
Personally, I'd much prefer Elizabeth Warren. Heck, I'd honestly prefer Bush 41 over either Clinton. But Hillary is better than anyone the GOP will offer up, and she'll bring along with her a lot of congressional victories because of increased Democratic voter turnout.
Differing from Barrack Obama might be the definition of a good president.How would Hillary Clinton be a good President and differ from Barrack Obama?
Once again, another poll where many are excluded from voting. Right leaning by most is considered conservative. Libertarians like myself are conservative economically and liberal socially. To me, on the left and right scale a neo-con would be right in the middle and near left with liberals compared to what I consider true right.
Having said that, Bush was a horrible president. He bloated the size of government, was asleep at the helm when 9/11 came, ruined the economy with his measures before and after the crash, and then left the rest of us with the payout.
No he did not " ruin the economy."
Wow, WHY are so many Americans are so easily influenced ? So easily manipulated by Talking points ?
Is it lazyness ?
Differing from Barrack Obama might be the definition of a good president.
No he did not " ruin the economy."
Wow, WHY are so many Americans are so easily influenced ? So easily manipulated by Talking points ?
Is it lazyness ?
LOL....you probably argue that Herbert Hoover was just "misunderstood" as well.....right?
Differing from Barrack Obama might be the definition of a good president.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?