Votes by demographic group

[xj0hnx]

Did you know that african americans generally vote with the Democratic party? Has nothing to do with Obama, its just they don't vote for racists in the Republican party. Mormons voted for Romney because they were told to.

Also no surprise that Munky is visiting a white supremacist website.

Really? So 2 million more blacks coming out to vote in '08, and '12 is because he was a democrat? If it had been two crackers, you think the majority of them would have still come out to vote?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's late, but I mostly see a lot of people attacking the messenger here, while the actual numbers seem to me pretty much what I'd have expected based on the many polls I read. What's the problem, exactly?

 

[nehalem256]

While not a huge disparity, Romney DID get the support of significantly fewer women than Obama. Obviously it's not a black and white difference, but a few percent in any direction is the margin of victory in many elections...so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as a non-existent issue for Republicans. And given the election results, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss ways Republicans can gain ANY support.

And one could say the opposite of men and Obama. But for some reason no one cares about courting the male vote.

 

[uclaLabrat]

While not a huge disparity, Romney DID get the support of significantly fewer women than Obama. Obviously it's not a black and white difference, but a few percent in any direction is the margin of victory in many elections...so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as a non-existent issue for Republicans. And given the election results, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss ways Republicans can gain ANY support.

I see what you did there....









:biggrin:

 

[DominionSeraph]

Warning: Politically incorrect content to follow. Equalists and touchy-feely sensitive types, read at your own risk.

Why do Republicans keep insinuating that this is politically incorrect?

It is not politically incorrect to believe the Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say that Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say you voted against the Republican because he's probably a racist.

This is just mundane realism.

The Republican platform is, "We're for government of white male Christians, by white male Christians, and for white male Christians." It drips from every word they say. The votes show just how obvious it is, and it's in no way unexpected.

 

[First]

It is a very specific group. But I won't be calling out that group of posters on the forum. And I see how you automagically went from "old white men" to "white people." Try harder.

Haha, honestly your thread makes no sense, as most everyone knows Repubs are more than old white men; though statistically that quite accurately describes their base. Particularly the white part. So your whole purpose for this thread is, well, odd and useless.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why do Republicans keep insinuating that this is politically incorrect?

It is not politically incorrect to believe the Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say that Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say you voted against the Republican because he's probably a racist.

This is just mundane realism.

The Republican platform is, "We're for government of white male Christians, by white male Christians, and for white male Christians." It drips from every word they say. The votes show just how obvious it is, and it's in no way unexpected.

It's funny watching people like you and moonie, pretending to be intellectuals, but are really just intellectually vacant morons.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'm an old white guy that's a homeowner and I didn't vote for "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this lie.".

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's funny watching people like you and moonie, pretending to be intellectuals, but are really just intellectually vacant morons.

*Phew*
If you could follow me, I'd be worried. Glad to know you can't. (Not that you can grasp how stupid you are.)

 

[nehalem256]

Why do Republicans keep insinuating that this is politically incorrect?

It is not politically incorrect to believe the Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say that Republicans are racists.
It is not politically incorrect to say you voted against the Republican because he's probably a racist.

This is just mundane realism.

The Republican platform is, "We're for government of white male Christians, by white male Christians, and for white male Christians." It drips from every word they say. The votes show just how obvious it is, and it's in no way unexpected.

And going by the fact that 46% of women voted Romney the bolded is a lie.

Funny that for all the pandering to women and talking about a Republican "war on women" that Romney actually increased the percentage of women voting for him over McCain.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's funny watching people like you and moonie, pretending to be intellectuals, but are really just intellectually vacant morons.

Everyone has differing opinions about posters, but I like Moonbeam for a number of reasons, however not the pony. We know he's intelligent because he says so. He demonstrates this by not offering alternatives, or reason, and is shockingly easy to manipulate. We know because he tells lesser beings it's true. I'm thing his persona may be a clever affectation, something he "wears" here. I don't know the reason, but it's better to play a clever fool than to be one.

 

[zsdersw]

Let's temper all of this with the following truths:

1.) Romney is moderate. Of course he's going to have more of a broad appeal.

2.) If the Republican nominee had been someone like Huckabee or Santorum, not nearly as many women would've voted Republican.

3.) The country is at least 60% pro-choice. A former governor of one of the bluest states in the country is going to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate than any of the other Republican candidates this election cycle.

It does cut the stereotypes on the Republican side, but the other side of the story is who they had to have as their nominee in order to break the mold.

 

[nehalem256]

Let's temper all of this with the following truths:

1.) Romney is moderate. Of course he's going to have more of a broad appeal.

Umm. Romney did not appeal to anyone. As the Democrats were fond of saying for months. "Worse candidate in history". Remember that?

2.) If the Republican nominee had been someone like Huckabee or Santorum, not nearly as many women would've voted Republican.

3.) The country is at least 60% pro-choice. A former governor of one of the bluest states in the country is going to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate than any of the other Republican candidates this election cycle.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

By at least 60 you mean barely 40

It does cut the stereotypes on the Republican side, but the other side of the story is who they had to have as their nominee in order to break the mold.

McCain was not exactly say Huckabee either. But yet Romney gained 3 points over McCain. Despite the Democrats constant pandering to women and repeating about the Republican "war on women".

You might want to look at that.

 

[zsdersw]

Umm. Romney did not appeal to anyone. As the Democrats were fond of saying for months. "Worse candidate in history". Remember that?

Appeal enough to get them to come out and vote either for him or against Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx

By at least 60 you mean barely 40

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The consensus of this data is that a majority of America wants abortion to remain generally legal. Whether they identify as pro-choice or not is irrelevant.

McCain was not exactly say Huckabee either. But yet Romney gained 3 points over McCain. Despite the Democrats constant pandering to women and repeating about the Republican "war on women".

You might want to look at that.

Romney gained 3 points over McCain because of his younger age/appearance and Ryan was a better VP candidate than Palin.

 

[xj0hnx]

*Phew*
If you could follow me, I'd be worried. Glad to know you can't. (Not that you can grasp how stupid you are.)

Oh I follow you just fine, you aren't even remotely complex. Just another "your opinion is different, I hate you" moron, hoping your weird little persona will get you through.

Everyone has differing opinions about posters, but I like Moonbeam for a number of reasons, however not the pony. We know he's intelligent because he says so. He demonstrates this by not offering alternatives, or reason, and is shockingly easy to manipulate. We know because he tells lesser beings it's true. I'm thing his persona may be a clever affectation, something he "wears" here. I don't know the reason, but it's better to play a clever fool than to be one.

Admittedly, once in a while moonie will say something that's interesting, more so now that he has finally moved past his constant "self hate" phase.

 

[nehalem256]

Appeal enough to get them to come out and vote either for him or against Obama.

Bolded the relevant reason.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

The consensus of this data is that a majority of America wants abortion to remain generally legal. Whether they identify as pro-choice or not is irrelevant.

The problem with the poll is that "Available under stricter limits" could easily be interpreted as meaning illegal except in cases of "rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother".

I would not call someone favor those restrictions as pro-choice.

Romney gained 3 points over McCain because of his younger age/appearance and Ryan was a better VP candidate than Palin.

You Ryan who according to Democrats wanted to ban abortions in all cases helped Romney's appeal with women?

 

[Atreus21]

The old, white men I know voted for Obama, actually.

That's funny for me too. Most of the elderly whites of both sexes I came across were voting Obama.

 

[zsdersw]

The problem with the poll is that "Available under stricter limits" could easily be interpreted as meaning illegal except in cases of "rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother".

I would not call someone favor those restrictions as pro-choice.

The problem with your poll is that "pro-choice" isn't any more precise or accurate than the aggregate of polls I showed.

CNN/ORC Poll. Aug. 22-23, 2012. N=1,055 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal - 35%
Sometimes legal - 47%
Always illegal - 15%

82% think it shouldn't always be illegal. Some of them will identify as pro-choice, some won't. Some think it should be illegal only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. Some think it should always be legal except to determine gender or other physical traits.

Some who are in the "sometimes legal" category will identify as pro-choice, too.

You Ryan who according to Democrats wanted to ban abortions in all cases helped Romney's appeal with women?

Since when do you buy what Democrats said about Ryan?

 

[nehalem256]

The problem with your poll is that "pro-choice" isn't any more precise or accurate than the aggregate of polls I showed.

CNN/ORC Poll. Aug. 22-23, 2012. N=1,055 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal - 35%
Sometimes legal - 47%
Always illegal - 15%

82% think it shouldn't always be illegal. Some of them will identify as pro-choice, some won't. Some think it should be illegal only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. Some think it should always be legal except to determine gender or other physical traits.

Some who are in the "sometimes legal" category will identify as pro-choice, too.

So basically the polls about always legal, sometimes legal, always illegal are completely worthless.

 

[zsdersw]

So basically the polls about always legal, sometimes legal, always illegal are completely worthless.

No more so than polls that ask whether people are pro-choice or pro-life.

 

[Spungo]

Let's temper all of this with the following truths:

1.) Romney is moderate. Of course he's going to have more of a broad appeal.

Didn't mittens say he would defund planned parenthood and try to overturn roe v wade? He also said he was pro choice so who knows what the hell his position is.

3.) The country is at least 60% pro-choice. A former governor of one of the bluest states in the country is going to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate than any of the other Republican candidates this election cycle.

41% of US adults are pro choice. It doesn't matter if people want abortion to remain legal or not. That leaves about 59% of Americans willing to vote for a guy who will fight to end abortion.

"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal - 35%
Sometimes legal - 47%
Always illegal - 15%

82% think it shouldn't always be illegal. Some of them will identify as pro-choice, some won't. Some think it should be illegal only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. Some think it should always be legal except to determine gender or other physical traits.

This actually supports the claim made by Gallup. 35% of Americans are pro choice. 47% agree with the republican position of having "rape panels" to approve or deny abortions, similar to Obama's infamous death panels. 15% of Americans go even farther and say it should be illegal in all cases, including instances of rape.

 

[zsdersw]

Didn't mittens say he would defund planned parenthood and try to overturn roe v wade? He also said he was pro choice so who knows what the hell his position is.

Broad appeal = speaking toward both sides on an issue.

41% of US adults are pro choice. It doesn't matter if people want abortion to remain legal or not. That leaves about 59% of Americans willing to vote for a guy who will fight to end abortion.

Umm.. yes, it does. Did you read the polling data to which I provided a link? 59% of Americans don't want to "end abortion"... as polls show.

 

[Thump553]

For those of you trying to attribute Obama's victory to the welfare classes, one stat frequently overlooked (and omitted from OP's chart) is that Asian-Americans voted 71% for Obama-nearly as high as Hispanics (73%).

I'd love to hear the GOP justification for that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

For those of you trying to attribute Obama's victory to the welfare classes, one stat frequently overlooked (and omitted from OP's chart) is that Asian-Americans voted 71% for Obama-nearly as high as Hispanics (73%).

I'd love to hear the GOP justification for that.

Not to deny your point, but demographics aside it seems that people could stomach Obama 2% more than Romney. It's not as some would like it framed, but that was the margin of victory.

 

[HomerJS]

Draw your own conclusions. You may not like the source, or the author, but you can't argue with the data, unless your fragile worldview can't handle it.

Did the blacks vote overwhelmingly for Obama? Check. Ditto for hispanics. Whites overall preferred Romney.

Married women preferred Romney while single women overwhelmingly wanted Obama. Independent voters preferred Romney. Homeowners favored Romney, while renters favored Obama.

Certain leftists would like to have everyone believe that the "new America" is with Obama and only old, white men voted for Romney. The actual data paints quite a different picture.

Did u forget Asians? They went 72% for Obama