The left column shows something I posted a few weeks ago: maps of the states that we estimated were won by McCain and Obama among different categories of family income (as reported in the Pew Research pre-election polls). The maps in the right column show our estimates for non-Hispanic whites alone.
Unsurprisingly, McCain did better among whites than among all voters. In a refrain already familiar to regular readers, I decline to offer explanation or interpretation. There's been enough discussion of the white vote that I think it's a useful contribution to present these (slightly processed) data and give you more information to help you make your own conclusions.
See here for more details on what we did.
103 comments
Most interesting thing is what's up with poorer whites in NH and Conn?
Hamilton--
I was about to post the exact same thing. I actually would expect that from Connecticut (Hartford is a divided town in many respects), but NH is more surprising. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are the only two states where the highest income whites voted more conservatively than the lowest income whites.
Weird.
First thanks for the info again
All right wanted to get near the beginning on this one
I love this format
If you look at the swing states its obvious the minorities are what pushed Obama over the top. Thats all I'm going to say on that I don't want to drag up that whole debate again
The poorer you are the more likely you are to vote Democratic as well.
These next two obesrvations are more interesting to me
Very curious about Iowa is that a one-time prxomoty location effect to Illinois or not.
Finally the map with whites making below 20,000 looks very similar to the actual electoral map.
Comment away :-)
Though I think this is valuable information, there's one risk in interpretation -- and it's a very subtle one (and not something I'm accusing Andrew of).
Black people and brown people are about 25% of the U.S. population; add in Asian population and you're approaching 30%. And they're all potential voters.
When the "tradition" of looking separately at white and black voters started in American political science, it was in the context of a situation where most African Americans in the South were legally disenfranchised. Although there is still active vote suppression going on, especially in Republican dominated states, the idea that we need to distinguish how different races voted has lost something of its force now.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be interested in this from a sociological point of view -- after all, race is very salient in America and it's been a marker in every one of our national censuses since the first one in 1790. In that sense, we are a "racially conscious" society. (But race is no longer on my drivers license, as it was when I first got it.)
But as a citizen (not a social scientist) I prefer to look at how "Americans" voted in 2008, not how the different racial groups voted, with the implication that once we take out the minority groups we can see how the "real Americans" voted.
On New Hampshire the high income white Blue is commuters and new residents still working in Boston and other metros.
Vermont is the blue liberal state
Traditionally New Hampshire is the libertarian leaning more redish state especially with residents who have lived there longer.
Markets continue surge!! Obama wins again!!!
I wonder if Idaho, Wyoming and Utah will ever vote Democratic in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking the GOP could run a convicted sex offender and those three states would still vote Republican.
How 'bout Alaska & Hawaii?
Juris,
Don't take away the Real America intent. That is ugly and wrong.
My intent has always been for this to be an academic exercise and to show that there continues to be a large racial divide in this country.
I look forward to the day when people choose candidates based on the issues but that is still a long way away for both sides.
I am encouraged that the racially motivated groups are small on both sides. However it is obvious that in the Black community increased ENTUSIASIM and GOTV EFFORT along with actual voting along with McCains failure to carry Bush numbers among hispanics had a large impact on the results of this election.
I studied the maps very carefully, as I was interested in seeing if there were any states where it was not linear. Actually, I thought there might be cases where a state popped from one column to another and back again, as I think in some places the affluent and poor are Democrats and the white exurban truck driving middle class types lean Republican. Instead, we got a reverse linearity in NH and CT.
Any chance of getting similar maps for other elections, or something with more of a derivative mode like the ones showing the change from 2004? Would be useful to get a sense of whether blue collar whites in those two states are more likely to be racist, or whether they are just more likely to be conservative.
ok one more interesting theory and I will shutup for a bit :-p
We all know as income increases Republican votes increase
So the reddest map will be High income whites and the bluest map will be low income minorities
The hypothesis is the real battlground states. Take the blue states on the low income white map and the red states on the high income minority map.
So based on the map we have so far that would be
Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Montana, and Indiana
Interesting very interesting
@Nova: I'm just expressing my discomfort with the classifications, not so much my analytical perspective (we need to study race and ethnicity in this country, and to understand how labels and identities play in the process).
Before you can make the leap that it was Obama's race that is involved, you have to compare this to Gore and Kerry. I would bet the maps are pretty much the same. White people tend to vote in larger numbers for republicans. Shocking. The maps don't tell you anything else (except to point to a few states where low income whites cling to their guns).
I'm not even sure the maps tell you that much. The real split is rural vs. non-rural. With white people making up a much larger cohort of rural. Is it the genetics of the voters skin color or the amount of other people living within a mile of them?
So wait, would McCain have won if only white people had voted? If so I wonder whether this is this the first time that the candidate of white people did not with the presidency.
"minorities " becoming the "majority" have already made this way of thinking outdated.
in poor states like NM (and im sure others) it's hard to find any whites who make more than $40,000.
my guess is that skews the maps
sante Fe is a fluke- the great danger in visiting Sante Fe is getting hit by a Land Rover on a very narrow street.
Man. The days of razor-thin margins in Oregon sure are done with. Just in 2000, it was so close Oregon couldn't be called for days after the election; in 2008, an across-the-board, down-the-line blowout.
I wonder if Idaho, Wyoming and Utah will ever vote Democratic in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking the GOP could run a convicted sex offender and those three states would still vote Republican.
It's these subtle little jabs and insults that go mostly unnoticed (at least, relative to all the "Hey, f**k all you stooopid Rethuglicans/Liberal Scum" comments from both sides) but are every bit as unnecessary and serve no other purpose than to ejaculate bile and vitriol all over otherwise intelligent discourse.
What if I was to just randomly fire this comment out:
I wonder if New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts will ever vote Republican in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking the Democrats could run an axe murderer in those three states would still vote Democratic.
I'd probably be shouted down and/or insulted and almost certainly called a troll for making such a dickish "right-wing" statement in an otherwise mostly liberal echo chamber. And I bet l_d_o_f would have his/her undies/panties in a wad over the remark.
Double standard.
Fascinating. Are we headed for a permanent Democratic majority as the the ration of whites to the entire population decreases?
Patrick,
I agree the maps would be similar. What we really need to look at is turnout, not only turnout but enthusisiam levels, GOTV effort etc. Among African Americans all these levels skyrocketed because Obama was half African American.
Smoking Aces
I agree but
Dont feed the troll :-p
John,
Whites usually vote R. Its a bit tough to totally predict who would win becuase of the electoral college but percentage wise Whites voted for Bush I, and Dole in the 1990s.
Data from wikipedia
Ryan,
In a word Yes. Rs are screwed if they don't get the hispanic vote back to Bush numbers. Regardless its an uphill climb against the changing demographics. If minorities actually vote with higher turnout instead of the lower turnout common among many minority groups the efect is even more enormous. (This goes back to my first point in this comment)
I thought most of you already knew this but if minorities voted at the same rates whites did. The modern two party political system would be over.
NH & NJ have opposite dynamics going. NJ has middle class+ white voters voting Republican (the only state in the northeast), and NH has it for middle class-.
My guess is that rich whites in Jersey tend to skew towards the "Orange County" type, whereas the rich whites in NH skew towards the "Newton, MA" type. Whereas less well-off whites in NJ share more in common with their suburban/urban NY/Philly counterparts, and their analogues in NH are more like Upstate NY or even Alaska -- small town hunters & loggers.
@Ryan: arguably so, if the economy stays in a funk.
But there are no "permanent" majorities in this country.
Sorry about that. Obviously I was being facetious. I'm not saying Idaho, Wyoming and Utah support sex offenders. It's more they will vote against any Democratic candidate, no matter who runs on the Republican ticket.
If Utah didn't have such a large Mormon population, I feel they would be one of the first to vote democratic having such a young population.
Vermont voted Republican until quite recently at the Presidential level, and of course there was Jeffords... Are you just making stuff up now?
@ Ryan
I'd say it depends on the Republican party. If they are consistently losing, then they need to take a step back and adjust their position to take in enough people to be competitive. Especially if non-whites are voting Democrat a lot more than whites -- it's a good time to ask themselves 'why is that happening and how can we change ourselves so that more people vote for us'.
I think the problem here is that we are getting too caught up in race overall; however, the main point of this being missed all together.
90% of John McCain's vote came from white Americans and he still lost by close to 10 million votes. He was doubled in the electoral count and this was the worst loss a Republican has faced since Goldwater in 1964.
The point is that the Republican Party needs to appeal to all minorities (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Indians, and Hindus). If they don't do that, if they are still seen as the angry white guy party (living off of the Karl Rove/Lee Atwater Southern Strategy in which "The Democrats take your money and give it to THOSE people...") then they'll have problems for the next 20 or so years...
Bear in mind, that 60% of Obama's vote came from White Americans also. If the R's are completely disregarding and disrespecting those who identify w/ Democratic ideals, then they'll continue to suffer the self-parody and pantomining from the Stewart/Colbert crowd which is what a lot of younger voters are doing.
Fox news numbers are still climbing, but that's b/c there's a groundswell movement from the right that are waiting for baited breath for Obama to fail. This doesn't necessarily mean that Fox's ratings will translate to the voting booth. Still, the Republican Party has a long way to go... IMHO...
If they are consistently losing, then they need to take a step back and adjust their position to take in enough people to be competitive.
I think this is a great point by Rebecca and one a lot of people don't seem to get...too many people who follow this stuff closely - and should know better - believe that these (our two major ones, at least) political parties and their platforms are static over time, even for long periods of time.
I think it goes without saying that D's and R's here in 2009 are in another world compared to where the two parties stood on the issues, say, in the 1880's. There's even a good bit of difference in the parties compared to their "former selves" in the 1960's and 1970's. Some if that, if nothing else, is because the issues change over time. Anybody heard a good debate on the gold standard lately? Didn't think so. That would have been a different story 125 years ago.
Anywho, political parties often claim they exist to stand on particular principles and values, but really they are just clinging to one very binding principle - to get elected and stay in power by getting more votes than the next guy. That's why the North and South essentially flipped D to R and vice versa over a 40 year time period.
If minority support of Republicans continues to wane - which ultimately puts them at risk of complete irrelevance - you can bet your bottom dollar they will do something to actively court those people. They may target particular social programs or something that directly benefit or support minorities - just to get their vote - even as they potentially move further to the right on other social, economic, or foreign policies.
You'd be surprised what a political party can do and what it will "stand for" when it needs votes.
We all agree that in a perfect world race wouldn't matter in voting (and Obama/McCain split out the same across all categories). But that doesn't happen, and it has always struck me that the structural imbalances here should favor the GOP going forward, if they can shift their policies and appeals sufficiently to take advantage. Why? The Dems have to maintain an almost impossible 95% stranglehold on the black vote, and a huge advantage among hispanics. Why should we assume that they will be able to do this, 20 years out? Shouldn't the decline of race politics return minority voting patterns to more balance?
How many gun-toting, economically conservative homosexuals are out there?
Let the Republicans relax their stance on social issues as they pertain to gay/lesbian rights and how do you think these people will vote?
How many pro-life Hispanics and blacks who are also very supportive of a strong military are out there?
Let Republicans change their attitudes towards welfare and develop a plan to better channel federal and state money towards regentrification of urban areas, providing a safety net, curbing violence, and providing more opportunities for minorities, and how do you think they will vote.
The point being that the Republicans, for all of their ills and sickness, are only one or two major issues away - by either relaxing their own platform or taking a better, targeted approach than Democrats - from being able to steal millions of voters across all demographics - race, age, sexual orientation, etc.
I'm not saying they're poised for these kinds of changes necessarily soon, but it wouldn't take much.
Smokin' Aces wrote -
It's these subtle little jabs and insults that go mostly unnoticed (at least, relative to all the "Hey, f**k all you stooopid Rethuglicans/Liberal Scum" comments from both sides) but are every bit as unnecessary and serve no other purpose than to ejaculate bile and vitriol all over otherwise intelligent discourse.
What if I was to just randomly fire this comment out:
I wonder if New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts will ever vote Republican in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking the Democrats could run an axe murderer in those three states would still vote Democratic.
First, let me pause and wipe away a tear of sympathy for all the poor, victimized right wingers, whose sensitive souls are so traumatized by the smallest insult.
Some might characterize a group of people who don't mind tossing out threats, ethnic/gender/orientation slurs, and plain old fashioned hateful insults on a regular basis, but then faint with shock at the most minimal satire, as being hypocritical in the extreme, of course.
Moving on, I'll note that New York has had frequent and recent Republican senators and governors, Massachusetts recently had Romney for governor, and Vermont was traditionally one-party Republican, plus Bernie Sanders.
You'd be surprised what a political party can do and what it will "stand for" when it needs votes.
It's also interesting how success, in a way, can guarantee long-term equilibrium for the parties. Fixing something makes that something a less important issue and most moderates/independents have beliefs that could put them in either category. There's no inherent reason, other than the current mainstream political alignment for an otherwise-moderate pro-gun person to be against SCHIP or, conversely, for a otherwise-moderate homosexual person to be against lower corporate tax rates.
New Hampshire's switches when race is taken into account seems puzzling to me. NH's population is around 95 percent non-Hispanic white, and Obama took 54 percent of the vote. Could that 5 precent really cause a change in who won, at any income level?
The GOP's strategy for 2010 depends on the economy continuing to stagnate or deteriorate. But in that case, they will somehow try to claim that they have a better idea than Obama on how to solve our problems. Until then, of course, they don't have to articulate any comprehensive idea but their "old" idea of reducing taxes on the rich doesn't play -- or doesn't add up to a balanced budget.
So today in ads I've seen on CNBC they are preaching to their own choir trying to flog the Obama admin and the Congressional Dems for spending so much money on that horrible AIG. Missing from the story is that the large initial bailouts came from the Bush admin and the Fed under Bush. And missing is any sense of how much of a fix AIG put the country in (as per Bernanke's testimony).
In addition, AIG itself may move off the front page -- there will be other disasters ahead, and other issues. So why is the GOP pumping the AIG spending issue? Most likely because they're going to shift gears pretty soon to opposing all Obama spending ideas, in particular on health care reform.
But they're not going to make themselves popular by doing that! And they risk taking quite a drubbing.
Smokin' Aces -
Obviously, if the Republican party were to completely change their policy stances, heck, I might conceivably vote for some maginary future completely-different-from-the-2009-version Republican myself.
Essentially, you're admitting the defeat of the 1975-2005 "conservative" agenda.
Of course the party structure might survive.
The agenda they currently peddle almost certainly will not.
I wonder if Idaho, Wyoming and Utah will ever vote Democratic in our lifetimes.
I'm thinking the GOP could run a convicted sex offender and those three states would still vote Republican.
Liberal defender of freedom-
Larry Craig would not have won re-election if he tried,and he wasn't that egregious of a sex offender (just !gay!). He would have been primaried out.
Chances are a sex offender would be primaried out. If something terribly untoward or heinous happened between the primary and GE, and the Rep. did not resign for the "good of the party, I think the Dem would win. Most of the Dems in states like Idaho, Utah and Oklahoma are conservative enough that the voters would be able to hold their nose and vote for the Democrat over a child molester pretty easily I think.
The more interesting thing for me next election season is David "diapers" Vitters of the much self-vaunted family values. Is he going to be primaried out? Will the Dems be able to take this seat in a state that was whitewashed by the deadly combination of a Category 4 hurricane and the presidential incompetence in response?
Personally, I think what happens between consenting adults (even if one of the adult's consent has been purchased) is none of my business. However, Vitter is such a self righteous douche, I hope he loses his seat. I would prefer a Dem, but I would be satisified with him being primaried out too.
The New Hampshire explanation -
Here's my guess.
New Hampshire is 97% white and largely rural. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_hampshire#Demographics
But it does have plenty of small urban areas.
Lower income probably correlates with older age and extremely rural location.
I grew up in a similar area to rural NH, and I can tell you that there likely are many ancient members of both genders living out in the sticks, barely needing to spend their social security checks and barely using twentieth century technology, let alone twenty-first century.
Some of these folks probably began voting Republican before WWII.
Younger people, who are active in the work force, live near jobs, and tend to make over 20G a year as a result, may be voting differently from their grandparents. That's my guess.
@ Juris,
Your point is exactly what the problem is for Republicans right now - they are preaching to their shrinking choir and alienating the rest of the country.
@ Jen,
Your comments about David Vitter and New Orleans is exactly the problem that Republicans are facing. In the case of Vitter, his election campaign will be made a mockery if Stormy Daniels actually runs against him in a GE - which is exactly what he deserves.
And as far as Katrina, I tried to explain to some of my conservative co-workers that Katrina was the moment when the country changed on them and they still didn't get it. The fact that the conservative movement and Republicans OVERALL don't understand that the country doesn't trust them b/c of Iraq and Katrina is proof positive of just how out of touch and out of ideas this party has become...
A third demographic would be to show the location of the pockets of wealth/poverty. As it is, it looks from the graph like wealthy white folks are HUGELY against President Obama. I very much doubt that is true.
There's an interesting logical issue with the "stranglehold on the minority vote" thing.
Yes, it is true that Dems get an incredibly high proportion of both blacks and Latinos. However (and I'm not attacking the commenter here, just putting it out there) that over the last 40 years, the Democratic Party has shown a whole lot more interest to the issues that sure seem to matter more to those groups than Republicans.
It's not that they are monolithic for race reasons, it's that Republicans have been ignoring the interests of minority groups and/or antagonizing them for long enough that it will be awfully hard for them to get support back without a style and substance change.
The fact that the conservative movement and Republicans OVERALL don't understand that the country doesn't trust them b/c of Iraq and Katrina is proof positive of just how out of touch and out of ideas this party has become...
I agree wholeheartedly that Iraq and Katrina were epic failures, but I since in reading your little outburst that you don't completely get it.
The Democrats have taken power convincingly because of this lack of trust you reference. But, as sad as it is to say, they too will face their own international issues like the ones (9/11 and Saddam's defiance) that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan or natural disaster like Katrina. And they will be tested. By exploding Middle East tensions and someone like Iran? Maybe North Korea? Russia? China? Another devastating hurricane or major earthquake? Famine or flooding?
As bad as Republicans handled Iraq/Katrina, I don't have any more confidence or trust in Democrats that they will adequately handle any of the potential conflicts and crises I memntioned above or others I haven't listed.
Your lingering disdain for Bush and Co. over Iraq and Katrina and how that was a massive failure on their (conservatives and Republicans) seems to insinuate that you think, by default, Obama and Co. or other current and future liberals and Democrats will automatically handle any future crises adequately and appropriately has several shades of blind ignorance.
There are people today who will never forgive the Democrats for Carter getting absolutely punked by the Iranian hostage crisis.
All I'm saying is don't think you guys have all the answers and are infallible in challenging and trying times. Because you haven't been in the past, and I don't expect you will in the future.
Americans are becoming more socially liberal and they are getting tired of conservative extremism.
Look at how popular Collins and Snowe are in Maine. Romney got elected in Mass. Schwarzeneger got elected in California. Republicans can get elected in so-called liberal bastions. These places are filled with well-to-do social liberals. They are turned off by social conservatism and tend to support more funding for education.
I don't see this trajectory in America changing. We are becoming more socially liberal. If republicans want to survive as a party, they need to come face to face with this.
I believe right now we need liberal economic policies but I'm not blind to the fact that there is potential for overreach. At some point in the future, it's certainly possible we will need to adopt more conservative economic policies to promote growth.
what I don't want to see is the religious right come to political power again.
I wouldn't hold a funeral for social conservatism just yet. The most important thing right now for the GOP to do is realise that they are stunningly unpopular at the moment and to try and figure out why. My guess is a lot of it is quite 'gut feeling'. People just don't like the Republicans, partly because of Katrina and partly because of the economy and partly because of the Iraq War.
Republicans have to find a way to get people to trust the brand again, and partly, I think, its going to take a softening of there stances on some issues. But to say that social conservatism is dead is kind of ludicrous. It will have its day again, just as it has had many days in the US in the past.
WV coffee- seriously thats the first time my WV has ever been a proper word!
@ drhgl19
I'd be curious to here what you think those minority issues are and from other commenters as well
I am trying to seperate out these issues from urban and lower class issues also
So three types of issues
Minority interest
Urban interest
Poor interest
There will be some overlap but not total overlap
@ andrew
The religious right has a lock on the South. Also this is a path to get back the hispanic vote and conservative church going blacks as well. Bottom line it's not going anywhere soon it's a major tenent of the Republican part
The debate right now is almost purely economic. Its curious that the Rs aren't running ads attacking Obama for his stances on removing roadblocks put in place by Bush to reduce abortions for example. I don't live in a socail conservative area maybe that is happening there or maybe it will be brought up close to election time.
@ markymark
Humm Does it really need to be pro republican or just anti-democrat.
Looking at the elections I can actually remember
Clinton was anti-Bush I
Bush II was anti-Clinton
Obama was anti-Bush II (remember all the Democratic ads tying McCain to a 3rd Bush term)
Point being the partisans are fairly static. The moderates keep switching back in forth. Not because they are pro-that party. Then they would actually join the party. Because they are sick of the current party in power.
Markymark, I agree compeltely. There is a merit to conservatism, but the question is how long it will take the GOP to separate the wheat from the chaff and get there.
Me? I think that takes 10-15 years as they are presently constituted. They'll still have their standard 40-42% nationally at bare minimum (plus a good amount of Blue Dogs), but they won't move past that until they have functional alternatives. In a way, that's what Bush did- he forces the GOP to up their game now that their brand is in the mud.
@ Aces...
You just called me to the carpet on that for what I said about Iraq and Katrina, but maybe I should be more specific.
I will agree w/ you that Carter was no doubt punked by the Iranians and there will be challenges for the Dems as we move forward in trying to rebuild this country.
My overall point is that the conservative movement and The Republican Party has had this overall notion that this is a center-right nation and they can at any moments notice during an election cycle, appeal to the majority of voters that matter. That whole notion disregards and disrespects any other person who disagrees w/ their viewpoint.
Now, not to get too wordy - I'm not an overall Demmie who's a bleeding heart. And I also don't support a party that gives in to another party to start an unjust war based on bogus intel, all of which should've been known to be false.
I'm an American citizen who wants my country to win. And whether it be a Democrat like Barack Hussein Obama or Bill Clinton - or a Republican like Dwight Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt, who so ever does the best job of running my country and running my government so we all succeed in the end - I am 100% for.
But when you resort to name calling and saying that I'm more American than you just b/c Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh told me so then THAT is something I vehemently disagree with.
...and Ronald Reagan is NOT coming back.
Please understand that I am trying to be sarcastic w/ the Reagan comment and I am not trying to attack you for your reply to my earlier comments. I'm trying to engage in a healthy discussion which is what too few happen to do on these boards...
jroc133,
Thanks for the more eloquent version. I agree or can at least appreciate most of what you said in that context.
@ Nova,
Don't look for the Black Church in the South to be overwhelmingly conservative in the near future just b/c the Black Church is still Christian.
African-Americans still remember the Lee Atwater Southern Strategy that I talked about earlier. They still remember the Willie Horton ad, they still remember Florida in 2000, and they still remember Jesse Helms in NC.
What I'm trying to say is that Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell won't wipe away the stain of the last 40 some odd years ever since LBJ signed the voting rights act back in '64. The Southern Dixiecrats turned into today's Southern Republican - same face just a different name...
What Republicans will need to do, and this is key, is address issues in a fair and honest way. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone on the horizon who will do that for them.
Bush 1 was the last of the true Rockefeller Republicans and he was also a statesman. The man was much smarter than his son would ever be; however, the tragic irony is that the country changed on him in the 90's and it led to William Jefferson Clinton. Still Bush 1 has a ton of respect for Billy C. And I still have a ton of respect for Bush 1.
W on the other hand... Total screwup, plain and simple...
Umm... what about Alaska and Hawaii?
The Democrats have taken power convincingly because of this lack of trust you reference. But, as sad as it is to say, they too will face their own international issues like the ones (9/11 and Saddam's defiance) that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan or natural disaster like Katrina. And they will be tested. By exploding Middle East tensions and someone like Iran? Maybe North Korea? Russia? China? Another devastating hurricane or major earthquake? Famine or flooding?
If you think by its very nature that government intervention of any kind is harmful, situations like Katrina and the banking collapse are a foregone conclusion to Republican rule. Of course, if you think the government can and should help in disaster relief, put in place reasonable regulations, and attempt to level the playing field so people succeed by the virtue of merit and not birth (but helping those that can't help themselves) then it is only natural you have a more beneficial government.
The Republicans expect government to fail in its endeavors (except war, but they failed those in the last administration anyways), and when the government is Republican, it does (at least since 1980). People want their government to work. For the Republican brand to revive it will need three things:
1. The Democrats to become corrupt and complacent as the Republicans have over the last 25+ years. (Likely- it happens to every ruling party; it is the nature of the beast).
2. Republicans to realize that there are not enough uber-rich people, and to start making an effort to make government work for the middle class. (I hope for this, because good government benefits everyone, regardless of if you are a Dem or Repub.)
3. A realization by the Republicans that changing demographics are making their party obsolete. As Nate has mentioned before, the Republicans rely on white married people to win, and there are fewer and fewer of those. I actually think Bush II did try to epand out of this demographic a bit, but McCain did not. (Note- I am in the "Republican" demographic, a married white woman).
nova,
I don't entirely disagree with your analysis of elections being about being against something, as well as for something. I think that could be more of a problem for the Democrats come 2016. Its amazingly rare for a President to be elected after 2 terms of a President from the same party (George HW Bush is a very rare exception in this).
But actually I think that the Republican Party is in a real mess now. One of the features of the 2008 election was the factions within the GOP and how they reacted. Until Palin was selected, it was notable that the religious right really hadn't warmed up at all to the battle. And without there organisational skills the GOP had coalesced into several mini camps- the business camp largely around Romney, the social conservatives around Huckabee, the moderates initially around Giuliani, and in a rather old fashioned kind of way McCain emerging as a compromise that didn't upset any of those other three groups too much, even if he didn't excite the evangelicals before Palin came along. Oddly after Palin it was the evangelicals who got most excited, almost as if the rest were so turned off by the evangelicals.
I think that unless a transcendent candidate emerges from the GOP by 2016 then i think that the Democrats have a real chance of holding onto the White House for a prolonged spell.
Regarding poorer whites in NH and Mass voting for Obama - I am wondering if these are mostly impoverished college students and recently graduated college students.
jroc, you have to be kidding that Bush 1 was a 'Rockefeller Republican'. Bush 1 was no moderate. He surrounded himself with exactly the same sort of neo cons as Dubya, indeed introduced many of them to his son, and pursued a social and foreign policy every bit as conservative as his son. He was no moderate.
First off, stop it with the zombie myth! Long-time New Hampshire residents are turning Democratic; the people who move into New Hampshire to get away from Democratic Massachusetts are in fact the main Republican bastion these days.
Second, New Hampshire's lack of income or sales tax makes it an attractive place for low-income seniors to retire; there are a fairly large number of trailer parks in some areas. I suspect those are what bring down the low-income white vote.
Third, I agree with the comment about minorities not making up enough of the population to have that much of an effect. In all three brackets from 0 to $75k they made up exactly enough to be the difference between voting Obama and voting McCain?
@ Marky,
I disagree and here's why
1.) 1st Gulf War, Bush had James Bakker tell Saddam to get rid of all his chemical weapons and not use them on us (our troops) or we would've done then what we just did 6 years ago. B/c Bush 1 knew that Saddam was a necessary evil, he moderated on the issue and let him stay in power to keep the region stabilized esp w/ Iran.
2.) He had the Neocons around him, but he knew how to keep them at bay. Just like Reagan, he knew that the religious right and neocon/libertarian wing brought in votes; however, his biggest mistake was the "read my lips..." gaffe that cost him his 2nd term. Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfowitz were frothing at the lips to go get rid of Saddam and Bush 1 said nope b/c he had the sense to say this ain't gonna work for the bigger picture.
3.) Again I say Bush 1 was much smarter than his son ever was. He was a pragmatist (which means he made decisions w/ what he knew, not what he believed.) If he was a true ideological conservative, he would've never raised taxes in 1990 to deal w/ the rising national debt that Reagan created - ideologs make decisions based on what they believe. That's why Clinton was able to make Newt Gingrich his b1tc# in the 90's.
You might not take what I'm saying for the gospel, but Bush 1 had enough common sense and smarts to see through Cheney and the rest of the neocons as crazies who only cared about making money at the govt's expense. Bush 1, whether you liked him or not, was a true statesman and a patriot who also wanted his country to win at the end of the day. His downfall was the tax hike and his age - he appeared out of touch w/ the mood for where the country was back in '92.
@ Jen,
I love you... You hit the nail on the head and it is so sad that conservatives don't understand that they have become their own worst enemies. If they don't believe in government or that govt can help solve problems, why should we put them in high level positions.
Virginia is interesting. Obama doesn't win the white vote at any income level, nor does he win any of the vote over $75k. I thought it was the wealthy DC suburbs that were supposed to put him over the top, but apparently he turned the state blue with minority voters making under $75k.
...and neocon/libertarian wing...
I can't help feel a little uneasy seeing your lumping of these two as a "combined" wing of the party. Neocons tend to be more interventionist and meddling in foreign affairs and on social policies than libertarians.
About the only area they share much common ground is individual economic liberties. To me, Ron Paul is in a different galaxy from Dick Cheney.
Michael,
Virginia is 20% African American. More importantly both the registration and actual voter totals among African Americans were enormous.
The two congresssional seats that flipped from R to D in Virginia flipped because of African Americans registering and voting in larger than normal numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia%27s_2nd_congressional_district
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia%27s_5th_congressional_district
Needless to say these seats are both big R targets in 2010 which should see depressed Black turnout compared to 2008.
Again you call me to the carpet. I guess I'm lumping them together b/c at the end of the day, they both label Dems or anyone that disagrees or are to the left or progressive as a socialist or a Commie...
I shouldn't do that by placing the two together, but it seems that they both share an outright hatred for Dems. At any rate, Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave...
As a Republican, I am really frustrated with the way this party is moving now. But I disagree with a lot of the conventional wisdom about how they should change themselves. The Republicans do not need to appeal more to blacks and Hispanics...they need to appeal to what is still the biggest block of votes - WHITE people. Their loss of white votes since 2004 was what killed them to a large extent. Their loss of the Philly suburbs and Long Island and places like that is a big problem. The issue is that they have't directly targeted a message to these people. I don't really think it's about becoming more liberal - it's about creating a targeted message.
My concerns are that the Republicans are losing college educated and the young. I am pretty young myself and I see my friends voting for Obama, generally with no real understanding of what his election means. As white men, they voted for a man whose agenda requires handouts and policies to benefit everyone BUT THEM. Yet they don't get it. They don't see that their future will be paying more and more for government programs which benefit more and more unskilled immigrants (Obama wants to pass amensty). They don't see how the feminist movement has severely hurt their chance of finding a high-paying job, but also a chance of having a stable family to support that job with (extremely high divorce rates, and mostly women filing). Many young people opposed Bush because of the war...but what's done is done and I hope that many of the young people will start to realize what Obama's agenda really means.
At some point, Obama's popularity will wane somewhat. It will be up to the Republicans to educate people, especially my generation, about the real challenges...and it won't all be sugarcoated. The upper-middle class who voted Dem are directly hurt by Democratic policies. Republicans will need to take some risks. The might offend people in doing so. But instead of cowering like they have been, they need to stand strong, for the good of this country. It's our only shot.
Agreed, voter turnout among minorities was huge. I just think it's interesting that the prevailing rationale out there for why VA went blue is because the affluent communities in NoVa came out heavily in favor of Obama. I know that did happen in some districts, but looking at NoVa on the whole, 75% of households make at least $75k, and according to the map, Obama didn't win that demographic. NoVa's population is almost 32% minorities. Taken together, it seems to me that the real story is less about affluent NoVa, and more about voter turnout among minorities and the less affluent (<$75k).
Again you call me to the carpet.
No, not at all. Not this time at least. The first reply above was a little more scolding and angry, which are traits of calling someone to or on the carpet. Not with this one. I just said I'm a little uneasy and think it's a little inaccurate to lump the two together.
I guess I'm lumping them together b/c at the end of the day, they both label Dems or anyone that disagrees or are to the left or progressive as a socialist or a Commie...
That's a broad generalization. Is it true, though? Yes, to some degree. But how is that any different from a Dem/liberal/progressive who sees someone who's an avowed creationist, a bigger "free market" believer, and is mostly against controls on gun rights but is an otherwise very nice person who is educated and caring towards his fellow man as a Bible-thumping, right-wing, neocon, imbecile? Don't many of those who I just described get equally as unfairly characterized and generalized by people on the left? There are fecal-throwing assholes on both sides of the aisle.
I shouldn't do that by placing the two together, but it seems that they both share an outright hatred for Dems.
To summarize what I said above, I know of plenty of Dems who have an outright hatred for many libertarians and neoconservatives. How is it any different from the (few) libertarians and neocons who call progressives as "Commies", "Socialists", or o the left of Karl Marx when some liberals demonize them as being to the right of Adolf Hitler or Attila the Hun?
At any rate, Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.
True, probably, as his version of conservatism was vastly different from the modern version in many ways. However, that's true across the board. Differences in opinion are what make us individuals but not necessarily bad people. That comes when our personal beliefs become ideological and we become driven towards self-interest as a result.
@ John,
That post is the very reason why you guys are being humiliated - you just said it outright what I just said throughout this whole post. Your party is turning into the angry white guy party and it is in no way speaking to all Americans who believe in the constitution and where it says that all men are created equal. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"... as long as you're white. Give me a break.
That's just like saying you're for low taxes (for the rich), small government (unless you're in charge), and limited govt spending (unless you're the party handing out the checks).
@ Smoking Aces,
I have to really rein in my tone b/c you might take some of the things I say the wrong way; however, you are only saying what should be said and that is what makes this country so great and what makes us better than any country in the world. If you have a rational discussion, better ideas come to the forefront and when put in place - the country thrives.
Now, if you're like John and say how this country needs to go back to what it was - then you turn into the Whig party b/c you don't progress or move forward w/ the future.
Its sad, but then again - that's why Republicans are in the mess that they are in...
It sure helps me sleep easy at night knowing most of you liberals will be burning in hell fire for eternity while I am enjoying my heavenly rewards.
I get a great kick out of all the theorizing about how the GOP has to change in order to attract voters.
The upshot apparently is that Republicans have to be more like Democrats to win elections.
Who'd a thunk it!!
Religious Always Self-Righteous...
I don't think anybody would want to spend all eternity with the smug likes of you. Now that would be Hell.
markymark:
Your analysis of the Republican party is dead on (1:32). It was remarkable, though, that McCain only lost by 7% considering the mess the party is in. I think most of that 7% will become quickly disgruntled when they realize they are not going to get their mortgages paid off and are not going to get a bunch of other "free stuff" from Obama.
We have a long way to go before 2012 or 2016. With what's happening to the money supply, inflation will be astronomical. That 7% won't be happy when they're paying $6 or $8 for a gallon of milk or for a Happy Meal at McDonalds. If the Republicans can find some leadership, it should at least be interesting in 2012.
jroc,
I maybe overstated my case a little but to describe George HW Bush as a Rockefeller Republican is flat out wrong. The guy was no moderate. I would say he was as much a conservative, but in a different way as his son. Dubya belonged far more to the neocon grouping true enough, BUT remember Atwater worked for HW, and did his most savage work (on Dole and Dukakis) on behalf of Bush. If Bush were really a moderate he would have said 'enough' to Atwater. Bush, at the very best you could say, threw his lot in with the right of the Republican Party.
GROG,
I am kind of assuming Obama does a halfway decent job, and that Plouffe and Axelrod can run an effective reelection campaign. I'd actually disagree that winning by 7% was a surprise, I think Obama's win compares favourably to most first time Presidential victories. Most reelections either flame out badly, or end up with a bigger win second time around. I don't see YET anything in the GOP to suggest that they have anyone who can unite all the different factions.
I would further my analysis by saying that the reason the rest of the party was so happy to compromise over McCain was because they wanted to rest the party from the religious right, and the real battle for the heart of the GOP will only be fought fully when the religious right has a candidate in the mix against some of the other factions.
jroc133 said:
"If they don't believe in government or that govt can help solve problems, why should we put them in high level positions."
It's not that Republicans (I should say conservatives) don't believe in Government, they just don't believe in BIG government.
Many things have contributed to the mess we’re in. Bureaucratic management can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything.
People are being very presumptuous in their predictions about the demise of the Republicans, and are going to end up looking very silly.
The US public is certainly drifting left on social issues, but social issues rarely win elections.
1. No-one has any idea if the current drastic fiscal measures will manage to avert a full-scale depression. If they don't, the Democrats are probably f*cked. This is of course unfair, but people won't remember or care who started throwing money at the banks. People will also forget about Bush's profligacy, and start vaguely thinking of the Republicans as economically prudent again.
2. Even if they do succeed in averting depression, there will have to be be a long, long period of austerity and belt-tightening. This will make things harder for the incumbent party.
3. If the Dems win two terms, they'll probably be voted out however well they've done. People just don't like politicians, and enjoy punishing them when they get the chance.
Unless the Republicans keep doing idiotic things like nominating Palin, they'll win one of the next three elections.
"Many things have contributed to the mess we’re in. Bureaucratic management can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic planning doesn’t work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly, it’s unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won’t solve anything."
I meant to credit that quote to Ron Paul in a speech he gave in 2006. Rings more true today than ever. He saw this coming a long time ago.
@John:
"My concerns are that the Republicans are losing college educated and the young. I am pretty young myself and I see my friends voting for Obama, generally with no real understanding of what his election means. As white men, they voted for a man whose agenda requires handouts and policies to benefit everyone BUT THEM. Yet they don't get it."
If you're serious, I think you're the one who doesn't get it. I may be overly optimistic, but I like to think that there are people with values beyond immediate economic self-interest (assuming for the sake of argument that you're right about their immediate economic interests). Oddly enough, conservative politicians seem to have no trouble exploiting this when pandering to religious ideology to encourage votes against rational self-interest.
How is it that you are unable to fathom that I might have principles which are worth more than your promise of a few dollars more in my pocket? How is it that you cannot imagine that I might believe some of these liberal policies to be more beneficial to the nation in the long run even if they arguably disadvantage me now?
I would expect the Republican party to improve its standing among your young, educated, upper-middle-class, white friends when it stops treating them as though they are as shallow and short-sighted as you pretend they should be.
Now, you can certainly argue that these Democratic policies are in fact harmful to the nation in the long run, and that they violate fundamental principles that we ought to hold dear. (And then you can try to argue that this ought to outweigh all the harmful garbage pushed by the Republican party. Good luck with that.)
But that's not what you were doing above, and it's not what I've seen from the Republican party in its campaignig. Instead it's, "Why oh why would these crazy people vote for something that takes a dollar out of their pocket? Especially if it benefits Those People. You must not get it." Yeah. I think maybe they do.
So the only states where McCain won across the board were the Mormon states and primarily low-income white West Virginia. Interesting.
For the few conservatives/Republicans who occupy this site, our movement/party was in much dire straits in 1996 (though I was less fearful for our country's future in 1996 than I am now). If you give the 1996 Bill Clinton Obama's demographic composition this year, Clinton wins by around 11-13 points. The exit polls showed Perot voters in 1996 would have gone to Clinton 50-43 over Dole. Clinton wins Texas, Colorado, and Georgia if you give him Obama's demographical composition. He'd be walking down Dole in Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana as well...we could have been facing a 450 electoral vote landslide with Clinton v. Dole.
Just look at how bad the numbers were in 1996...they'll make you feel significantly better about this year considering that we came back just four years later. Clinton unbelievably won white women 48-43. He somehow won 13% of the Republican vote. He won a whopping 72% of Republicans. He even won 7% more White Catholics than Dole.
Clinton was bleeding our dominance among white women...we were on the cradle of our graves in 1996 but we united behind Bush in 2000 (with help from Nader). We can do it again in 2012 as I'll take the Obama numbers over the drubbing that we took from Clinton in 1996.
@ smoking aces
"I'd probably be shouted down and/or insulted and almost certainly called a troll for making such a dickish "right-wing" statement in an otherwise mostly liberal echo chamber. And I bet l_d_o_f would have his/her undies/panties in a wad over the remark."
Considering that republicans re-elected a diaper-wearing whore schtupper, and a toe tapping "heterosexual" mensroom goblin, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your accusations.
Smoking Aces wrote:
The Democrats have taken power convincingly because of this lack of trust you reference. But, as sad as it is to say, they too will face their own international issues like the ones
I'm afraid that you are the one who just doesn't get it. Bush placed an incredible number of incompetent people in high and low ranking federal jobs, based on their religious views or political loyalty. That's how you got someone who ran a stable put in charge of Katrina. People weren't mad at Bush because a hurricane hit. Instead, they were furious because the response was so disorganised and feeble, because international aid was turned down, and because FEMA seemed to regard the people as some kind of enemy to be defeated.
It's very likely that bad things will happen, but there is no sign of the cronyism, nepotism, and rank incompetence that the Bush Administration displayed.
On top of that, it's highly unlikely that an Obama Administration would defend incompetence to the degree that Bush did, which really gave the issue staying power.
Conservatives really have no idea what they lost in Katrina. They will rail about school buses and such, but those are not the haunting images that remain in people's minds.
"It's not that they are monolithic for race reasons, it's that Republicans have been ignoring the interests of minority groups and/or antagonizing them for long enough that it will be awfully hard for them to get support back without a style and substance change."
I've seen a lot of comments like this and I had to respond to them. What are the "interests" of minority groups and why are the Democrats better equipped to serve them?
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, the party of segregation and Jim Crow laws, and even the party of the KKK (who tried to keep Southern blacks from voting Republican). A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of '64 than did Democrats. I realize there has been something of a realignment since then, but it's not as though the Democrats have historically been knights in shining armor for the minority community. For much of the 20th century, they were the knights in white bedsheets burning crosses in those communities.
There's also the perception that the Republican opposition to welfare and a safety net is an appeal to racism. Racists don't want their money to go to "those people." While that may be how a few people feel, this is not why most conservatives oppose government assistance. They don't want their money going to ANYONE, no matter what their skin color.
The point I'm trying to make is, there's no good reason that blacks should vote nearly monolithically for Democrats or indeed, that whites should vote in large majorities for Republicans. It's just that Democrats managed to gain an advantage in the black community early on and no Republicans have even bothered to campaign to them. The same goes for Democrats in a lot of mainly-white and rural areas.
If there is to be movement in either direction on this issue, the first step is to stop racially gerrymandering election districts. Nate made a post a long time ago about this. Gerrymandering allows white politicians to be elected without having to campaign to black people, and black politicians to avoid having to campaign to white people.
Holy shit, you used PRE-ELECTION data!??!?!!!?!??!?!!!?!?!???????
"For the left column of maps, we fit a multilevel logistic regression fit to Pew Research pre-election polls."
So, please tell me, how did white people vote in 2012?
That explains what's going on in New Hampshire.
It wasn't that long ago that states like Idaho, Utah, and Arizona sent people like Frank Church, Frank Moss, and Mo Udall to the US Senate. The GOP went racist in 1980 and I'm afraid a lot of people in the Rocky Mountain West did too.
It doesn't have to stay that way. There's no good reason for those folks to be so xenophobic. They'll come back, but the Republicans will never outlive their legacy from the last 30 years. No conservative will lead this party back from the hell they've created for themselves. They need to start over with a totally new brand.
DennisS, this is exactly what I'm talking about. How did the GOP "go racist?" I won't deny that there ARE racists in the Republican Party, but there are also racists in the Democratic Party (see: 2008 presidential primary). But there is not much of a legacy for them to outlive. Hell, if Colin Powell had wanted to run in 1996, the first black President would have been a Republican.
Xenophobia is different, and I would agree that is more mainstream among Republicans (at least in immigration debates). However, there are a lot of legitimate arguments against illegal immigration, so it is irresponsible to assume that anyone who supports a strong border is a xenophobe.
It's not just a matter of having racists in the party, YCT.
[from a 2005 Washington Post article]
It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."
Quixote, my wondering about my friends' support for Obama is not really all about a few dollars. I'll tell you what I think. The guy's intelligence is way overrated and he's a lot more radical than he acts. Actually, my financial interests are not necessarily Republican. I'm a student. What I see is our country descending into identity politics. Obama is a white-hating black man whose outlook is very feminist. He's the most pro-abortion person ever to serve in Congress. We now have illegitimacy rates approaching 40%. They were 5% 50 years ago. And now we have much higher rates of crime and social problems. Hmm I wonder why - maybe Dads were good for something after all. Is Obama going to address this? Nah, he'll encourage more government handouts.
We see all the problems with Mexico. I have nothing against the Mexican people, but they have their country. We shouldn't be encouraging more breaking of our borders, which Obama is doing. I know everyone wants to be enlightened and all, but absorbing the least-skilled of Mexico will deplete our productivity. Gradually, but it will happen. Meanwhile, the white upper-middle-class has 2 kids at most. Who is the future? It will be more ethnic identity politics. Blacks and Latinos solidly Dem, whites becoming more and more Republican. I mean goodness, SOMEONE will have to vote Rep. (McCain's immigration policy was bad also, of course.)
I'd rather radical feminists not have attacked the traditional family and pitted women against men. I'd rather we not let the elites import more and more new voters while screwing the rest of us. But these things happened. If you think white men are angry now, wait 10 years. Women already make more than men in many big cities. Dads have their kids confiscated from them on the ex's whim. The economy and female choices don't necessarily validate their hard work and education. This stuff is just bubbling now. And some minority men may be part of this movement too.
John:
However much you disagree with his policy proposals or think he's insincere, you simply cannot look at Obama's speeches on race, or fatherhood, and honestly claim that he hasn't at least recognized and sympathetically addressed most of the concerns that you raise. Seriously, you should read them.
And disagreeing with the President's actions or statements is one thing, but claiming he's a dim white-hating secret radical is another. The last thing the GOP needs is more of that.
As far as the anti-"feminist" stuff, I don't know what to say. You're upset that "female choices" don't necessarily validate the hard work of men? WTF. Is this some political code I'm not familiar with? I agree with Obama that our daughters should enjoy every bit the same opportunities and rights that our sons do. If that's radical, so be it.
I'd rather radical feminists not have attacked the traditional family and pitted women against men. I'd rather we not let the elites import more and more new voters while screwing the rest of us.
Not sure which are worse, your injunctions or your subjunctives.
There's a strong relationship between being "black," "Latino," or a "woman" and poverty.
I am not sure what "new" information we have from these charts. What we already knew was: whites nationally voted for McCain; blacks and/or Latinos accounted for many of Obama's victories in "swing" states and definitely for the depth of his victory in traditional blue states. In many blue states, however, he would have lost or come close to losing without black or Latino votes.
DISSENTING JUSTICE: Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died
This pretty much confirms what I suspected all along. People from Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and West Virginia.....are clueless. Oh yeah.....you could probably add Alaska to that list, too.
Kos pretty much eviscerated this study today, based on the use of pre-election data vs. exit polling. Now I'm no expert on polling, and voters don't always accurately report their votes, but I would like to see if Andrew responds to the criticism.
Let's see if the times union does it's job and asks Murphy about this.
Scott Murphy for Congress truth about bonuses
Scott Murphy for Congress tax problem
Scott Murphy for Congress against death penalty
@John: "I mean goodness, SOMEONE will have to vote Rep"
Uh, no, actually there is no law of nature that requires political parties to continue to attract any voters at all. Nobody HAD to keep voting Federalist, or Whig.
Smoking Aces was talking earlier about what changes the GOP could make to attract groups who are profoundly alienated by the party's recent stances: the answer is, it's too late, there's nothing they can do. I could not possibly consider voting for any Republican candidate for anything, ever again, in this lifetime, and I think I speak for many when I say that. I vote for third-party candidates when I do not think the Democrat has earned my vote.
It is somewhat like what happened to the US automakers. My dad tried out a Toyota in the late 70's, discovered to his amazement that it never needed to go in for repairs for anything, ever-- and has never bought a Big Three car since. Now, the Big Three have greatly improved their cars in those decades-- but it's too late.
These maps really did not surprise me very much. Wealthy people will generally vote republican because of their political beliefs. They are worried that if a democrat was elected into office that they would have their taxes raised causing them to lose money while poorer people are getting tax cuts. Republicans are in favor of keeping traditions going compared to democrats. Since more white people were in America when those "traditions" were started, and people of other races immigrated here at later times, it makes sense that there are a lot of white republicans. Overall the whites in America are wealthier than the other ethnic groups in America. So it would again make sense that people who immigrated to America who are poorer would vote democratic, because of the democrats views on taxing and because of the programs democrats have started to help minorities.
Bob X,
Your response is narrow-focused and anecdotal. Yeah, there are a lot of people unbending who will never vote for a particular party (or buy a GM or Ford product, for that matter) after making a switch from one to the other or after vowing their undying loyalty at a particular point in life when they feel as if their values are set in stone...
BUT, there are millions of people who aren't that way. Hell, there are millions of people who switch loyalty from one election to the next (every 2-4 years) WITHOUT there being any tangible policy changes.
You're telling me if the Republican party came out tomorrow and announced unequivocally that their platform on gay rights was about to go through a major overhaul - that, as a party, they would relax their long-held angst towards the homosexual community and would be pushing for legislation that would grant more equal access to the same rights afforded heterosexuals, that there wouldn't be some kind of softening of relations between the two communities and some votes might switch as a result?
There are homosexuals who are otherwise very conservative who would no doubt change their allegiance, who at present lean Democratic simply because equal rights is more important to them than the tax code, abortion, gun rights, foreign policy, etc.
If that's no longer an obstacle, what's to stop them? You seriously think they're going to be like, "Hey, well you guys did me no favors before, so even though you've changed your platform to accommodate me, screw you."?
Not everybody is as narrow-minded and unbending as you are.
As an addendum, however, I think the odds of the GOP undergoing a major overhaul of their platform on gay rights in the very short term is slim to none. It will either never change or take quite a while and only slowly evolve. I wouldn't rule it out as coming quicker - along with other potential policy changes - if they continue to get their ass whipped in future elections.
If the GOP suddenly came out (so to speak) with a gay-rights platform, I wouldn't believe them or trust them for a second. Yes, I would refuse to forget the years they spend in bed with (so to speak) the Goddamned Christian Right. Those memories are indelible; the GOP would have to wait until everyone who is now alive and of an age to be politically aware is dead. But by that time, the GOP will be dead.
wv: scrota. You can't make these things up.
...the GOP would have to wait until everyone who is now alive and of an age to be politically aware is dead.
Again, not everyone is like you. Hey, if you wanted to remain skeptical in that scenario and never consider changing your allegiance, that's fine and well.
I'm just saying there would be plenty who would be more inclined to vote...your assessment of people's unwillingness to trust the GOP based on anecdotal evidence (your own personal feelings and probably some other people you know) is compelling and nice to hear but in no way indicative of how broad swaths of people would respond to a policy change by the party.
Again, millions switch from election to election WITHOUT major policy changes. It's not a stretch to think it would happen, perhaps to a greater degree, if there is a major policy change.
Getting back to the original post...
The data given shows some interesting trends in the political beliefs of white people and people of different incomes. The idea that white people are more conservative than people of different races kind of surprised me. I know that people vote differently based on gender, education, and political socialization, but to see some data that shows that white people voted more for republicans was a surprise. I would have thought that people of different races would not vote so differently from each other in this election because of the popularity of Obama’s views, even though Obama is himself a minority.
This brings up the idea of a minority majority in the United States since the white vote was going towards McCain and he lost the election. However, I don’t think that that is the case since the white vote was only a little bit for McCain and the amount of minority votes were easily enough to overturn the white vote. It could just be that there are lots more old white people around than young people creating another explanation for the overall white vote.
At the same time there are income levels in the data that show a greater amount of votes going to McCain, another interesting well-known political behavior shown by this post.
"The point I'm trying to make is, there's no good reason that blacks should vote nearly monolithically for Democrats or indeed, that whites should vote in large majorities for Republicans."
The reason is the Republican party DOES NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE.
Individual Republicans may like or tolerate black people, but the party as a whole does not.
Why would black people vote for a party that does not like them? Black people might vote for an individual Republican but they'll never vote for the Republican party as a whole because Republicans don't like black people.
When you have Republican lawmakers getting up on TV and blaming black people for the subprime crisis and blaming Hispanic people for why Washington Mutual failed, and calling Indian kids "macaca" and wanting to evict all the Muslims/Arabs out of the country, it's no secret why Obama got most of the minority vote.
Maybe if Republicans came up with solutions and reached out to EVERYONE in their community they'd tap into more minority vote.
But as long as the prevailing mentality of the Republican party is NON-WHITE PEOPLE=EVERYTHING WRONG WITH AMERICA, the GOP will continue to lose more and more of the populace. Not even white people want to hear that noise anymore. Which is why the GOP lost and will keep losing.
It is an interesting graphical description considering the political ideology of each party. Liberal tend favor more government action which president Obama is going to take great opportunity on advancing his main campaign promises. Democrats have a concern with historically marginalized people. Which mean the democrats have to implement some kind of relief to help the family out. In order to help these who are historically marginalized they have to raise taxes on these who are wealthy. So as the level of the income of the individuals goes up the individuals tend to disassociate themselves from the Democratic Party because they do not want their money to given to the needy. In other word they become greedy. The counter argument the individual make is I worked hard to earn my wealth and the government cannot restrict many things upon me.
In the other hand the conservative political ideology favor less government action which fevers the rich individuals. If individual is active, wealthy, and rich the individual can go head and be supper rich. If you active and poor you are on your own. The government cannot help you with anything. The Republican Party is basically there to protect the richest individuals for the government. Republican are concerned with protecting traditions.
@Smoking: of course I can't claim to know that "everyone" feels like I do, but in the absence of formal polling on the question, my anecdotal evidence is as good as yours-- probably better, since I bet I know more people who are profoundly alienated from the Republicans than you do.
My sense is that the alienation is permanent for too many people for the GOP to have any realistic prospect of recovery. The Nazi party cannot win over Jewish voters by any change of platform: it is too late.
i this that this map does really interesting. Reading some comment post, some saying
"Poor people are more like to vote for Democratic" or
like what lurkmode said "The point I'm trying to make is, there's no good reason that blacks should vote nearly monolithically for Democrats or indeed, that whites should vote in large majorities for Republicans."
The reason is the Republican party DOES NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE."
I kinda disagree with that. I mean many people may think that's true then why is there a good amount of those voters of republican party that are black? I think it kinda goes back to the point of how if you're poor then you're likely to vote for democratic. Majorities are more likely to be poor and that's why the vote for democratic. And you bring up about how republican lawmakers getting on TV and blaming minorities, why not see the others things they do for minorities then just bring up such things.
But i don't know, maybe you might be right about that.
From the results of this data, it's apparent that a candidate's race matters in how people vote. In the past, we have never had a presidential candidate who was not white, so it was not as apparent in the past. The maps in this posting showed that most whites voted for McCain, despite their income status. So that means that race affects the way people vote more than their (the people's) social class? Why is this so? Do people really believe that an individual can run a country better just because of that individual's race? Why is this the way that people believe and behave? What does race really entail anyways? Does being one race signify superiority? NO!!!! The answer is no. So why does the data show that people think otherwise? This shows that our nation still has a long way to go before "equality." I believe that electing Obama is taking one step closer to where we, as a nation, want to go.
@Ythao: "why is there a good amount of those voters of republican party that are black?"
There isn't.
There are several key facts that one can instantly recognize when studying these figures for only a moment. The fact that the higher the salary goes, the more Republican the state leans towards is quite apparent and a key note in the data. Republicans swear by fiscal responsibility and thus this data shows that generally people who are the most "responsible" or successful with their money are the ones to vote Republican. Another key point is that the states tend to lean in one direction and have no real discrepency towards the candidates when it comes to their real political views in the sense that voting patterns hold true across the average incomes in those states. The only case that this is not true is in the extreme income disparities between high and low. Despite all of this it is obvious that White Americans, no matter the income, tended to lean Republican which seems to imply that (as we have all thought) race certainly played a part in the outcome of this monumental and historical election. Even though Democrats are seemingly labeled as tax and spend liberals with an itch for big government, under both the Reagan and Bush administrations, the government got both larger and spent more. Despite this, the more conservative South STILL felt the need to vote Republican thus furthering the debt and spending that was brought about under the Bush administration. This is yet another concrete piece of evidence that voting tendencies are something well developed and pre-conceived perhaps long before the eventual election that occurs.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Betty
http://desktopmemory.info
Post a Comment