Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Blacks and Latinos didn't all vote Democrat. And whites didn't all vote for Romney. Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted Dem. And yeah, whites didn't all vote for Romney. But Romney voters were white (and male). Those are not the demographics. The demographics are takers and providers. Takers voted Democrat and providers voted Romney, be they white, black or latino. I suppose, as a true left-winger, you are just doing your job to keep the race card alive. Nope, just following up on what Bill O'Reilly and other conservative pundits have been blathering about since last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Digging though the results: 6 states Obama did better in this time than last time. Rhode Island New York New Jersey Mississippi Alaska Louisiana And looking at the counties in particular, all of this can be summed up in 3 ways. Palin was not on the ballot this time in Alaska. More black people voted for Obama this time than last time. The areas hit hardest by Sandy must have liked what Obama did as his vote increased there. Edited November 7, 2012 by TheNewTeddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly voted Dem. And yeah, whites didn't all vote for Romney. But Romney voters were white (and male). Except for those that weren't. For real, let the race-baiting crap die already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 About 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Even though the majority of the socioeconomic status of those people makes it more conceivable for them to vote for the Democrats but not that large a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Except for those that weren't. For real, let the race-baiting crap die already. Whites made up 72 percent of voters in 2012. Romney won 60 percent. Obama increased his share of the Hispanic vote from 67 percent to 69 percent. And Obama earned over 90 percent of the black vote in this election. How are these facts "race-baiting"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The demographics are takers and providers. Takers voted Democrat and providers voted Romney, be they white, black or latino. Do you have to turn off a switch when you argue that the Democrats are liberal elites who control all the universities and the media? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 More race-baiting: In 1992, George H.W. Bush received 10% of the black vote, while Bill Clinton received a surprisingly low share at 83%. In 1996, Bob Dole received 12% of the black vote to Clinton’s 82%. In 2000, George W. Bush received 9% of the black vote to Al Gore’s 90%. In 2004, Bush 2 was able to increase his share of the black vote up to 11%. And in 2008, John McCain with Sarah Palin on the ticket received 4% of the black vote. Conclusion: for some reason, blacks in the U.S. traditionally and overwhelmingly vote for the party that doesn't think of them as shiftless lazy parasites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Except for those that weren't. For real, let the race-baiting crap die already. Valiant effort, but this is what always happens. They will argue "race politics" based on mere exit poll data and county demographics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Valiant effort, but this is what always happens. They will argue "race politics" based on mere exit poll data and county demographics. So race is a non-factor in U.S. politics in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 When Obama passed the 270-mark he was trailing Romney in the popular vote. Fortunately, Obama passed Romney in the popular vote too. Otherwise it would have been a very lame mandate to govern the country. you mean like harper and the cpc?... ...winning a majority of the seats while 60% of popular vote was against him ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 So do the same people that think our FPTP system is BS think the same about the Electrical College? yup, but I really don't care how americans decide their elections...FPTP is a seriously flawed democratic process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I thought this was an interesting piece from Spiegel, prior to the results. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-commentary-about-us-election-campaign-a-865431.html Regardless which candidate wins the US presidential election on Tuesday, neither of them has been honest to the American people about the scale of the problems facing the country. But Americans have only themselves to blame. They prefer to be lied to rather than to face the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 That's true of all people in every country for the most part, until it's not. Canadians like to be lied to just as much as Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The districts are based on population. In fact unlike in Canada, a state can lose districts if its population goes down. A purely popular vote result doesn't take into the consideration of different geographical regions. Are you talking about going with Congressional Districts instead of county by county like they do now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Are you talking about going with Congressional Districts instead of county by county like they do now? I think he means that each electoral vote would be awarded to the winner in that district on its own....it wouldn't work though, since senate and house districts are overlapping. You could use house districts, but then 270 wouldn't be the number anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I think he means that each electoral vote would be awarded to the winner in that district on its own....it wouldn't work though, since senate and house districts are overlapping. You could use house districts, but then 270 wouldn't be the number anymore. Right because 538 is the Senate (100) and Congressional (435) members plus DC (3). The number would be 435 if they just used House Districts. Of course, the GOP would love that, since they control Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Obama is up by almost 3M votes, and California, Oregon, and Washington still have a great deal to come in yet...he did really good considering. They probably do, I would imagine...I'm not one of those people with our FPTP system....electoral college...I'm not sure. I have always explained the Electoral College system to politically astute Canadians as the FPTP system on steroids. FPTP is not an issue unless you have multiple parties carving up the vote on one wing or the other, making victory possible in a riding for a candidate whose views do not match that of the electorate.In the U.S. the problem is, in most elections (1968, 1980 and 1992 excepted where the third-party candidates had a real impact) the votes of very few people put a President in to power. In 2000 it was 751 voters in Florida. In 2004 we came close to a repeat in the other direction, where Bush had a significant popular majority, but carried Ohio by, if the pundits last night were correct, 80,000 votes. But still, the operation is similar to FPTP, which is "winner take all" in a given jurisdiction, which may mean alot. A good example is California. California was once somewhat reliably Republican and in fact was the main bastion of the arch-conservative John Birch Society. Now, 55 California's Electoral College votes always go the Democrat in spite of the fact that between 30-40% of its population is quite conservative. The reverse is true in Texas. The result is that some people feel powerless and disenfranchised. It is unlikely, though, that either FPTP or the Electoral College will be materially changed. Too many people have "dogs in the hunt" to develop a consensus for change. Edited November 7, 2012 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) I have always explained the Electoral College system to politically astute Canadians as the FPTP system on steroids. With an added layer of elitism since the Electoral College was created expressly to counter to the wishes of the rabble. Edited November 7, 2012 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 you mean like harper and the cpc?... ...winning a majority of the seats while 60% of popular vote was against him ... That's a lame retort. Want a clear majority in Canada? then only have two parties run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 Since each Electoral College vote is representative of a congressional seat you could easily have the race run district by district instead of State by State.Assuming each district that voted for a Republican would have also voted for Romney, that would mean Romney would have won under this scenario. Not saying I want this system because Romney would have won, I'm just saying it would be a better reflection of the different regions of each state and across the nation. Maine and Nebraska allocate their Electoral College votes that way; per district, with two at-large corresponding to Senators.The reason more states haven't gone this way is that it discourages candidate interest in the state, for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 With an added layer of elitism since the Electoral College was created expressly to counter to the wishes of the rabble. Quite true.Except rabble.com didn't exist in 1787. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 That's true of all people in every country for the most part, until it's not. Canadians like to be lied to just as much as Americans. I prefer the explanation I heard on CBC election coverage... people accept half-truths because they can build their own bubble world reality that matches what they want to believe...so they're sticking their fingers in their ears essentially... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 The final wall of freedom has fallen and the world has no more protection against Statism. Democracy, when voting becomes a vote for special interests, entitlements and privileges, surrenders freedom to the State. This is pretty silly considering theres no real difference between the democratic and republican records in this regard, and since the US has had this statist bent for such a long time. Niel Macdonald actually did a piece on this last night... on how people like you believe in this false perception but its never really been true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 That's a lame retort. Want a clear majority in Canada? then only have two parties run. it was a bang on target observation, there is nothing that prevents multiple independent candidates from running for president... and they do http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.htmlharper/cpc have a phoney majority...had Obama lost the popular vote by even 1 or 2 percent his victory would have far far more legitimacy than harper's majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) I disagree with the notion that the Republicans need to moderate to win. Reps made significant gains in the swing states even though Obama had the post-recession bounce in jobs/gdp/market. I think Obama's 2nd term will do to the Dems what Bush's 2nd term did to Republicans. It's gonna be a painful 4 years for the stock and jobs markets though. Edited November 7, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.