Juror#8 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 ...Blacks voted at a higher percentage than whites (in the 2012 election). 66% to 64% http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/black-voting-rate-higher-whites-first-time-2012/ Someone who is more used to interpreting trend lines may be interested and able to say what this portends for the elections moving forward. If it were just 2012, I'd think that it was anomalous. But it appears as if things have been trending in this direction for almost 20 years. Anyway..."rah rah, who cares?" right... Truthfully, I agree. Either the GOP gets "it" right, or they watch elections slip away to a Democratic party that is stale and out of fresh ideas. I'm actually more interested to know what happened to the decisive 2010 voter who was out to send Washington a statement? There were a few here who mentioned that "that" voter would be dispositive in 2012. What happened? Paging the tea party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 No surprise to see participation increase among blacks over time, but I think to get a accurate read of a long term trend you need to wait and see what happens in the next few elections that don't feature a black candidate. Hopefully in time some party will emerge that is interested in restoring fiscal sanity to our country and it will attract voters of all races. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Race baiting is an effective method of turning out the Democratic base Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) No surprise to see participation increase among blacks over time, but I think to get a accurate read of a long term trend you need to wait and see what happens in the next few elections that don't feature a black candidate. Hopefully in time some party will emerge that is interested in restoring fiscal sanity to our country and it will attract voters of all races. Very few people vote based on economic or fiscal matters, and of those who think they do, most don't have a clue. People vote based on social issues. Those are far easier to understand and generally boil down to a sense of right and wrong. I work in finance and I'm shocked to see how often fellow analysts, who have no issue determining the financial strength or health of company XYZ, refuse to apply this same skill set to the financial state of our nation. Most that I talk to consider any concerns regarding our fiscal future as "doomsday prepping". They fundamentally believe in the perpetual strength and solvency of the United States. Whats happening in Greece can't ever happen here at home. Armed with these irrational beliefs its easy to support breaking out the checkbook to drop a few trillion on a new shiny healthcare plan, and ignore the fact that said plan cripples the mechanism by which it will be funded. My overly simplified, rambling and anecdotal point is, if even those of us with degrees in finance/economics and years in the industry are largely ignorant or disinterested in how the sausage gets made and vote based on other factors then what chance does some mouth breathing sociologist have of casting an informed vote on economic and fiscal matters? Elections will continue to be decided by social issues and the emotional response to these social issues. Dems maintain a distinct advantage on social issues although their party is f@#$ed when it comes to economics. Republicans are f@#$ed on social issues but they at least claim to represent some form of fiscal responsibility (in practice both parties fall pretty short). Edited May 9, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Very few people vote based on economic or fiscal matters, and of those who think they do, most don't have a clue. People vote based on social issues. Those are far easier to understand and generally boil down to a sense of right and wrong. I work in finance and I'm shocked to see how often fellow analysts, who have no issue determining the financial strength or health of company XYZ, refuse to apply this same skill set to the financial state of our nation. Most that I talk to consider any concerns regarding our fiscal future as "doomsday prepping". They fundamentally believe in the perpetual strength and solvency of the United States. Whats happening in Greece can't ever happen here at home. Armed with these irrational beliefs its easy to support breaking out the checkbook to drop a few trillion on a new shiny healthcare plan, and ignore the fact that said plan cripples the mechanism by which it will be funded. My overly simplified, rambling and anecdotal point is, if even those of us with degrees in finance/economics and years in the industry are largely ignorant or disinterested in how the sausage gets made and vote based on other factors then what chance does some mouth breathing sociologist have of casting an informed vote on economic and fiscal matters? Elections will continue to be decided by social issues and the emotional response to these social issues. Dems maintain a distinct advantage on social issues although their party is f@#$ed when it comes to economics. Republicans are f@#$ed on social issues but they at least claim to represent some form of fiscal responsibility (in practice both parties fall pretty short). So what social issues can the GOP co-opt without it seeming as if they're compromising their extant fundamental political priniciples? Immigration? Welfare? Healthcare? Gay Marriage? My thoughts are that they should use the ACA as an opportunity to create a legislative program that accomplishes the broadscale objective of healthcare reform, but without so many of the inefficiencies and waste in the current system. Because the complaining about the ACA, with the only proposed alternative being what we had before (so many people being sick, without insurance, over-burdening the system, etc.) is unsustainable. I think that they can also make some headway on gay marriage. My understanding is that gay males are the wealthiest demographic in this country. Realistically, they should be a republican base. It creates a bit of a logical dissonance, though, when the GOP is telling them that though they appreciate their financial solvency, independence, and community sense of economic manifest destiny, they unfortunately don't feel that they're "human" enough to marry who they love, have any consistutional support for their orientation, or share benefits with the individual whom they love. No surprise to see participation increase among blacks over time, but I think to get a accurate read of a long term trend you need to wait and see what happens in the next few elections that don't feature a black candidate. Hopefully in time some party will emerge that is interested in restoring fiscal sanity to our country and it will attract voters of all races. Cheers to that. But don't you think that the trend since 1996 is somewhat determinative even with the last 8 years being with a black candidate? Edited May 9, 2013 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 So what social issues can the GOP co-opt without it seeming as if they're compromising their extant fundamental political priniciples? Immigration? Welfare? Healthcare? Gay Marriage? My thoughts are that they should use the ACA as an opportunity to create a legislative program that accomplishes the broadscale objective of healthcare reform, but without so many of the inefficiencies and waste in the current system. Because the complaining about the ACA, with the only proposed alternative being what we had before (so many people being sick, without insurance, over-burdening the system, etc.) is unsustainable. I think that they can also make some headway on gay marriage. My understanding is that gay males are the wealthiest demographic in this country. Realistically, they should be a republican base. It creates a bit of a logical dissonance, though, when the GOP is telling them that though they appreciate their financial solvency, independence, and community sense of economic manifest destiny, they unfortunately don't feel that they're "human" enough to marry who they love, have any consistutional support for their orientation, or share benefits with the individual whom they love. I'm not sure which social issues they can adopt without alienating their conservative base. I won't even pretend to have answers to our healthcare situation, but I'm comfortable asserting that adding millions who do not contribute while creating significant obstacles to economic growth is going to result in a system which is more expensive than what we had and leave us less able as to fund this program. Taking a pay cut while increasing your spending requirements when you're already running up debt does not strike me as financially sustainable. But we're not talking financial sustainability. We're discussing political sustainability and, unfortunately, the people have spoken and change for the sake of change is politically preferable to the problem we know. Now to completely speak out of my own ass, I'm not sure I care if the Republican party alienates the conservative base by pulling an about face on social issues. They don't represent me at all in regard to social issues. Thats probably not a viable option, but I'd rather have a party that really represents my views that loses elections spectacularly than a party which gets it about 1/3 right and loses by a respectable margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Does this take into consideration the ones that voted 6 times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Does this take into consideration the ones that voted 6 times? I was going to say the Philadelphia vote alone probably made up the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I was going to say the Philadelphia vote alone probably made up the difference. c'mon you guys, be fair......they were only trying to make sure that their vote was counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 c'mon you guys, be fair......they were only trying to make sure that their vote was counted. Some precincts had a higher vote count than registered voters. How than could happen is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Some precincts had a higher vote count than registered voters. How than could happen is beyond me. ok, now you're just being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 ok, now you're just being racist. Or I could just be a black Tea Party member who likes to eat at Chic-Fil-A and hates rap music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) I don't believe blacks will come out nearly as high in numbers (% wise) for Hillary or any other white Democratic future nominee as they did for Obama, unless of course the candidate is black or has a strong "connection" with the black community. Edited May 9, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I don't believe blacks will come out nearly as high in numbers (% wise) for Hillary or any other white Democratic future nominee as they did for Obama, unless of course the candidate is black or has a strong "connection" with the black community. What if Eminem would run for president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) Or I could just be a black Tea Party member who likes to eat at Chic-Fil-A and hates rap music. I knew we had more in common than just a mutual support of the Bills Edited May 9, 2013 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Or I could just be a black Tea Party member who likes to eat at Chic-Fil-A and hates rap music. Isn't the Chic-Fil-A part a bit redundant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Isn't the Chic-Fil-A part a bit redundant? As compared to what, black, Tea Party or hater of rap music? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Cheers to that. But don't you think that the trend since 1996 is somewhat determinative even with the last 8 years being with a black candidate? Oh, sure. And further, I think having now had a black President will influence more blacks to vote even in future elections when all the candidates are white. It'll just take some time to see if they really do catch up to white voters on a permanent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 2 things: First this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/09/sweeping_conclusions_from_census_data_are_a_mistake.html Clearly everbody, even Trende, is still a little weirded out by 2012, and he's right to say: we don't know, because we know there's a problem. In fact, it's quite possible that blacks voted the same as whites, or even less, but over-reported. Turnout was absolutely down from 2008-2012. That alone tells us we should be very skeptical of any "demographics means Ds win forever" predictions. Therefore, we should also be skeptical of any "Rs have to change" wisdom, because if the electorate is "normalized" in 2016, that simply isn't the case. Then this: This election was unprecedented. Period. Anybody who says different is lying to themselves. IF the Gallup demo model was correct, then Obama loses. It wasn't, for the first time: ever. Saying you predicted that = saying you predicted the Bills comeback against the Oilers. Gallup's demographic model is not a poll. It's a friggin huge dataset. It's purpose is to determine the expected demographic makeup of the electorate. It's supposed to set a baseline so that it can be used to correct polls that deviate from the expected demos. If it is wrong, then all bets are off. Thing is, it's never been this wrong, until 2012. Nobody saw that coming. We are supposed to be able to count on a sample size of 20+k. Perhaps Gallup's error came from the same place that the link above describes? We can't know. What does this all mean? Well, either we are living in completely different times, over night, or, the 2012 election is an outlier. It's doubtful 2014 will help, because everything currently points to a repeat of 2010, in terms of the electorate. We'll see. Most likely, we won't really know if 2012 was an outlier, or if it truly does represent a new reality, until election night 2016. A safe bet: 2012s demographic makeup is highly unlikely to happen again, because the Ds can't run a black guy for President for the first time, ever, again. It's just as unlikely as the Rs running a Mormon from the NE, whose personality is a liability, ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/19/barack-obama-first-president-re-elected Barack Obama First President Re-Elected With Less Popular, Electoral Support Second Time Around Ed Krayewski| Nov. 19, 2012 11:26 am With just over 63 million votes this cycle and just under 70 million in 2008, President Obama became the first president to be re-elected to the office with less votes than he was first elected with since every state moved to deciding electors by popular vote. Prior to that, only George Washington got less votes in his re-election; he faced no opposition and only a few thousand people in a few states actually voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts