2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GATTACA!]

Do you see a connection between old white men voting for Romney in 2012? Or the Rich voting for Romney? I wonder who would have benefited from Romney winning in 2012.

Here is the breakdown from the 2012 election.
How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center

While yes the poorest and the people with the lowest education voted for Obama, did you notice that the most highly educated also voted for Obama? Yep, 55% of people with a postgraduate degree voted for him.

Also do you blame businesses for supporting Republicans when Republicans keep passing laws that benefit them? Do you blame old white people for voting for Republicans? Is it really shocking that minorities voted for a minority President?

If he had said that they voted Democrats because they felt supported by Democrats, or that they felt that Democrats represented them best, then I would agree but he wrote:

Obviously, there's a correlation. What kind of person votes without their best interests at heart?

In order to survive, however, the Republican party must not continue alienating these people. Instead, the GOP must offer feasible ideas that excite and engage these individuals so that they no longer need said help from the government.

You can continue harping about the increasing diversity of the nation and continue digging yourself in a hole, or you can shed the negative perceptions of the party by finding ways to empower groups who aren't traditionally Republican.

Of course i see a connection with old white men voting for Romney. My point was just that just because someone points out these connections it doesn't somehow make them a racist. If there was some way to bring in massive numbers of old white people into the country you bet your ass republicans would be doing everything they could to keep it going.

 

[Cackalacky]

The way he said it was less than tactful, but can you honestly say that you don't see a connection between the the party that wants more subsidies getting a the majority of the voters that use said subsidies?

Money spent on public welfare is minuscule compared to the corporate welfare in this country. But the narrative of a lazy person or single mom with food stamps is easy to propagandize.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If there was some way to bring in massive numbers of old white people into the country you bet your ass republicans would be doing everything they could to keep it going.

They're not bringing in new people, but they are doing everything in their power to make it harder for people to vote. Same end goal.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're an embarrassment to the GOP

You see, Democrats and Republicans can agree on something. NDGradstudent is an embarrassment to the GOP. I believe you will find bi-partisan support for that statement.

I have no idea if you're twisting my words on purpose or if you just don't understand. Let me put it another way: your racist views are harming the way that the GOP is perceived and fuels the narrative that we're all racist and bigoted.

It's quite disapointing that you're associated with my alma mater.

This is the type of understanding that is needed in the GOP to resurrect a diminished party. Too much hate has made the party into one that people vote against -- no matter who the Democrat is running against them in national elections.

Obviously, there's a correlation. What kind of person votes without their best interests at heart?

Our system is set up precisely for people to vote in their own self interest, so why do we try to club people with it when they do just that?

In order to survive, however, the Republican party must not continue alienating these people. Instead, the GOP must offer feasible ideas that excite and engage these individuals so that they no longer need said help from the government.

You can continue harping about the increasing diversity of the nation and continue digging yourself in a hole, or you can shed the negative perceptions of the party by finding ways to empower groups who aren't traditionally Republican.

The bolded ... spot on, DillonHall. My view of the GOP is that they have changed over the years from a reasonable alternative viewpoint to a party of "us against them at any cost." I am heartened to see a Republican (I presume) state what has been obvious to those of us on the left for a long time. Politics is about inclusion and serving the nation as a whole, not division and catering to a certain sector of the citizens. I have voted for Republicans in the past -- Reagan, Bush I, and would gladly look to the GOP as an alternative to someone like Hillary if the party would just offer up a legitimate candidate who does not operate from a position of alienation, inequality and moral superiority. Sadly, every candidate -- even those with the potential to rise above all the rhetoric for the good of the country -- will have to navigate the gauntlet of the GOP primaries and get pulled into the muck of hatred and "better than thou" politics that are deligitimizing the party. They will get pulled to the right, into the bubble, and there will be more of the same. When the lose, they will just turn up the same "no compromise" tactics that ensure nothing gets done for this country into the future.

Thank you for your stance, DillonHall. We don't agree on much in the rhelm of politics, but I appreciate you standing up for common sense and decency and condemning the ignorance that has infected the GOP. Reps to you, my friend. We need more Republicans like you to provide balance in our government -- not conflict, but balance.

 

[RDU Irish]

I really don't understand the Rand Paul love. This one video where he runs like a coward because an uncomfortable situation is coming is all I need to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HCpkVlX5OA

insert "Obvious Troll" meme here - girl's setting these guys up and this no name panel or libs is dissecting 4 second clips to try to frame them all racists. Gotcha.

Rand Paul did the right thing and got away from the troll. For all we know he was running late for his next event. He is a little bit more in demand than Rep. King. He may also know King is about to make points on an issue with which he does not agree, guilt by association comes in to play.

If this is grounds for complete dismissal of a candidate in your opinion, then I have little faith your vote really up for grabs in the first place.

 

[pkt77242]

Of course i see a connection with old white men voting for Romney. My point was just that just because someone points out these connections it doesn't somehow make them a racist. If there was some way to bring in massive numbers of old white people into the country you bet your ass republicans would be doing everything they could to keep it going.

That wasn't the racist part. The racist part was calling them not typical and that they voted Democrat out of resentment to the white man.

Also you left off the rest of my post where I point that out.

Yep, it sure must be resentment that drove them to vote for Obama, not the Republican's policies. Also they don't count as 'typical' Americans. Look we can debate how different subsidies encourage support (yes both among the poor and also among the rich and businesses) but he didn't do that. He attacked the minorities as not typical Americans, and that they only vote for Democrats because they are resentful of white males (and maybe white females but only the married ones). That is racist, and a little sexist. Sorry.

Again we can have a debate over subsidies that encourage support both among the poor and among the rich and businesses but that isn't what he did, he attacked minorities (and single women) as not typical Americans and that they only vote Democrat out of resentment of white men.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I have no idea if you're twisting my words on purpose or if you just don't understand. Let me put it another way: your racist views are harming the way that the GOP is perceived and fuels the narrative that we're all racist and bigoted.

It's quite disapointing that you're associated with my alma mater.

Frank acknowledgment of reality can be "disappointing"- it is not meant to cover us in schmaltz, but to help us plan for the future.

The problem is Republican voters who are honest, but those who are living in denial, such as yourself. Hispanic voters have never voted in majority for the Republican candidate for President for as long as polls have existed. The "perception" that the GOP is not the party for minorities is not affected by what people like me say. Go ahead and nominate a 'Hispanic' candidate (Rubio?) and see how well he does with Hispanic voters. Bush's "success" with Hispanic voters in 2004 involved him winning 40% of their vote. This is a voting bloc where it is considered a massive triumph if our opponent only wins 60% of their vote! If you keep bringing in more and more people, whatever the GOP gains in margin it will lose in volume.

Obviously, there's a correlation. What kind of person votes without their best interests at heart?

In order to survive, however, the Republican party must not continue alienating these people. Instead, the GOP must offer feasible ideas that excite and engage these individuals so that they no longer need said help from the government.

You can continue harping about the increasing diversity of the nation and continue digging yourself in a hole, or you can shed the negative perceptions of the party by finding ways to empower groups who aren't traditionally Republican.

You cannot change people's interests. The problem is that their interests tend to run up against the interests of the vast majority of the GOP. The vast majority of the GOP is not helped by higher taxes and government spending; most blacks and Hispanics are. The vast majority of the GOP is not helped by racial preferences in admissions or hiring; blacks and Hispanics are. The vast majority of the GOP is not helped by Obamacare; most blacks and Hispanics are. Again, you cannot change these interests. You can only change the sort of people you import. As to your last point, there is another option: enforce immigration law and initiate a pause in immigration, to allow for assimilation.

Just so everyone understands the rules: it is not "racist" to celebrate the "browning of America" -as liberals do- but it is racist to question it. Funny how that works.

Politics is about inclusion and serving the nation as a whole, not division and catering to a certain sector of the citizens. I have voted for Republicans in the past -- Reagan, Bush I, and would gladly look to the GOP as an alternative to someone like Hillary if the party would just offer up a legitimate candidate who does not operate from a position of alienation, inequality and moral superiority.

Right, and we saw that "inclusion" in the 2012 Obama campaign, which was essentially premised on hatred of successful people. Politics is not about "unity"- it is about conflict, division, disagreement, and so on. Without division, there would be no politics.

 

[GoIrish41]

Right, and we saw that "inclusion" in the 2012 Obama campaign, which was essentially premised on hatred of successful people. Politics is not about "unity"- it is about conflict, division, disagreement, and so on. Without division, there would be no politics.

The only thing people hate more than a loser, is a sore loser. You lost the election. Get over it. Maybe the Republican party should, as DillonHall pointed out, adapt to the changing demographics of the nation instead of trying to engineer the electorate in an attempt to hold on to the last bastian of 18th Century ideals that looks out for the normal Americans to protect them from all of those inferior, oddly colored people who are out to wreck the country.

I find a lot of Republican policies objectionable, but I find your particular brand of grotesque, bigoted, mean-spirited rhetoric to be particularly vulgar and lacking in humanity.

People are not moving away from the Republican party because they hate successful people, they are moving away because the only argument you can think of for the great political migration is to suggest something so unsofisticated and comically immature. People crave equality, fairness and a shot at the American Dream, not a rigged game in which the rich continue to get richer on the backs of the rapidly shrinking middle class and the rapidly growing poor. They don't resent the rich, they despise the indifference that they have for other human beings -- indifference that makes their lives worse every single day.

The policies that your party advocates for are relics of the past. Your economic policies have been proven ineffective over the past decades. Your stance on social justice and equality is mean-spirited and lacking in nuance. Your ignorance of science is a laughable tip of the hat to billionaires who want to keep destroying the planet for personal gain. And, more on topic, your disturbing views about diversity are making people run away from your party in droves.

Politics is not about disagreement and conflict, it is about compromise (which your party seems to have abandoned since the black guy became president) and getting things done to make the country a better place for everyone. But you keep thinking it is about the fight and not about results, I will look forward to some ignorant racially motivated tirade come 2016 when your party goes down in flames again because they lack the ability to recognize that the world has changed around them.

Finally, the only difference between you and that racist loser who shot up the church in S.C. is that you haven't shot anyone. You are just as full of shit and backwards as he is, and you have demonstrated to me that you have hate in your heart. I personally think you are a troll, because I cannot imagine anyone actually believing the despicable shit that you post on IE.

 

[woolybug25]

Honest question, and I normally would never call out an individual poster like this... But does anyone actually like NDgradstudent? In my opinion, he is not only a pompous ahole, but also a poor reflection of our fanbase.

I cringe every time I see him post. Then I still end up reading his written garbage. It's like watching a car wreck. It's both horrid and something I cannot look away from.

I actually hope that he goes overboard and gets banned. That or simply quits posting on his own accord. It saddens me that he is one of our own.

 

[Rack Em]

The only thing people hate more than a loser, is a sore loser. You lost the election. Get over it. Maybe the Republican party should, as DillonHall pointed out, adapt to the changing demographics of the nation instead of trying to engineer the electorate in an attempt to hold on to the last bastian of 18th Century ideals that looks out for the normal Americans to protect them from all of those inferior, oddly colored people who are out to wreck the country.

I find a lot of Republican policies objectionable, but I find your particular brand of grotesque, bigoted, mean-spirited rhetoric to be particularly vulgar and lacking in humanity.

People are moving away from the Republican party because they hate successful people, they are moving away because the only argument you can think of for the great political migration is to suggest something so unsofisticated and comically immature. People crave equality, fairness and a shot at the American Dream, not a rigged game in which the rich continue to get richer on the backs of the rapidly shrinking middle class and the rapidly growing poor. They don't resent the rich, they despise the indifference that they have for other human beings -- indifference that makes their lives worse every single day.

The policies that your party advocates for are relics of the past. Your economic policies have been proven ineffective over the past decades. Your stance on social justice and equality is mean-spirited and lacking in nuance. Your ignorance of science is a laughable tip of the hat to billionaires who want to keep destroying the planet for personal gain. And, more on topic, your disturbing views about diversity are making people run away from your party in droves.

Politics is not about disagreement and conflict, it is about compromise (which your party seems to have abandoned since the black guy became president) and getting things done to make the country a better place for everyone. But you keep thinking it is about the fight and not about results, I will look forward to some ignorant racially motivated tirade come 2016 when your party goes down in flames again because they lack the ability to recognize that the world has changed around them.

Finally, the only difference between you and that racist loser who shot up the church in S.C. is that you haven't shot anyone. You are just as full of shit and backwards as he is, and you have demonstrated to me that you have hate in your heart. I personally think you are a troll, because I cannot imagine anyone actually believing the despicable shit that you post on IE.

I don't usually post in this thread because it's a cesspool, but it's necessary. Calm down, dude. It's very clear you have little tolerance for opposing viewpoints (especially NDgradstudent's), but resorting to personal attacks is uncalled for. Walk away from the thread if you're so bothered by him.

 

[goldandblue]

Since the 2012 election was brought up,

Here is what I have learned from demographic election results of 2012.

1. Our president received the most votes in the 18-29 year age group. So his primary vote came from the least prepared age group to make long term future decisions. The same kids that are squandering away their parents tuition money in a bottle of jack.

2. Blacks were far more prejudice in their voting than whites. Black vote: 93% to 6% White vote: 39% to 59%

3. the majority of the current presidents votes came from uneducated people or those without a high school education.

 

[pkt77242]

Since the 2012 election was brought up,

Here is what I have learned from demographic election results of 2012.

1. Our president received the most votes in the 18-29 year age group. So his primary vote came from the least prepared age group to make long term future decisions. The same kids that are squandering away their parents tuition money in a bottle of jack.

2. Blacks were far more prejudice in their voting than whites. Black vote: 93% to 6% White vote: 39% to 59%

3. the majority of the current presidents votes came from uneducated people or those without a high school education.

First off it is pretty condescending to write-off a whole age group like that. Should we write off all older people as senile? Also that is a big age group to label it just college kids. It goes up to 29 years of age. He also received more votes in the 30-44 age category as well.

Finally, you are also leaving out the fact that 55% of people with postgraduate eduction (so the most highly educated Americans) voted for Obama. Any reason you didn't include that statistic? Did it not fit your narrative?

 

[GATTACA!]

Finally, the only difference between you and that racist loser who shot up the church in S.C. is that you haven't shot anyone. You are just as full of shit and backwards as he is, and you have demonstrated to me that you have hate in your heart. I personally think you are a troll, because I cannot imagine anyone actually believing the despicable shit that you post on IE.

Are you fucking serious? The irony of you calling someone else mean spirited or incentive almost kept me from neg repping you, but this is wayyyyy over the line.

 

[goldandblue]

First off it is pretty condescending to write-off a whole age group like that. Should we write off all older people as senile? Also that is a big age group to label it just college kids. It goes up to 29 years of age. He also received more votes in the 30-44 age category as well.

Finally, you are also leaving out the fact that 55% of people with postgraduate eduction (so the most highly educated Americans) voted for Obama. Any reason you didn't include that statistic? Did it not fit your narrative?

I did not see that statistic on the graph I found. Do you? I posted the pic from a link, I didn't edit it.

 

[pkt77242]

I did not see that statistic on the graph I found. Do you? I posted the pic from a link, I didn't edit it.

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center

Also according to your graph Obama won all education levels.

 

[connor_in]

 

[GATTACA!]

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center

Also according to your graph Obama won all education levels.

Obama won the election, there are going to be lots of demographics he won.

 

[pkt77242]

Obama won the election, there are going to be lots of demographics he won.

Agreed but here is here original post. He talks about Obama winning the uneducated vote but my point is that Obama also won the "some college" vote as well which was the highest education answer on his graph. Basically I feel that he was "selling" a narrative that was a partial truth.

Since the 2012 election was brought up,

Here is what I have learned from demographic election results of 2012.

1. Our president received the most votes in the 18-29 year age group. So his primary vote came from the least prepared age group to make long term future decisions. The same kids that are squandering away their parents tuition money in a bottle of jack.

2. Blacks were far more prejudice in their voting than whites. Black vote: 93% to 6% White vote: 39% to 59%

3. the majority of the current presidents votes came from uneducated people or those without a high school education.

 

[NOLAIrish]

Since the 2012 election was brought up,

Here is what I have learned from demographic election results of 2012.

1. Our president received the most votes in the 18-29 year age group. So his primary vote came from the least prepared age group to make long term future decisions. The same kids that are squandering away their parents tuition money in a bottle of jack.

2. Blacks were far more prejudice in their voting than whites. Black vote: 93% to 6% White vote: 39% to 59%

3. the majority of the current presidents votes came from uneducated people or those without a high school education.

You can't tell 1) and 3) from that chart. If 18-29 year olds and individuals without a diploma are a minority of the population, then winning those by a wider margin than other groups does not necessarily mean that they were your largest constituency. A simple example:
Say 90% of voters drive yellow cars and 10% drive blue cars. I run for office and get 48% of the yellow-car vote and 95% of the blue-car vote. Even though I did much better among the blue-car owners, it's not true to say the "majority of my vote" or my "primary vote" came from blue-car owners. In fact, only about 15-20% of my voter base drove blue cars.

 

[RDU Irish]

How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center

Also according to your graph Obama won all education levels.

Hilarious to me that Romney won demographics that earned more than $50k/year and Obama won the under $50k crowd. Maybe that is the overeducated philosophy PhDs serving up lattes at Starbucks pushing the post graduate degree stats over Romney but by and large not post graduate degree folks making a decent living.

Just so happens minorities are less educated and earn less, is it a function of race or a function of economics that drives the vote? I think for Hispanics it is economics, for blacks it is more confusing. Obama should not get racial credit for bringing in 93% of black vote because Dems have locked up that block tight as a drum for a long time. Race definitely drove that higher than usual and at a higher turnout. How you can view that as anything but racist to vote for someone based purely on the color of their skin is the ultimate in double standards though.

 

[GATTACA!]

Hilarious to me that Romney won demographics that earned more than $50k/year and Obama won the under $50k crowd. Maybe that is the overeducated philosophy PhDs serving up lattes at Starbucks pushing the post graduate degree stats over Romney but by and large not post graduate degree folks making a decent living.

Just so happens minorities are less educated and earn less, is it a function of race or a function of economics that drives the vote? I think for Hispanics it is economics, for blacks it is more confusing. Obama should not get racial credit for bringing in 93% of black vote because Dems have locked up that block tight as a drum for a long time. Race definitely drove that higher than usual and at a higher turnout. How you can view that as anything but racist to vote for someone based purely on the color of their skin is the ultimate in double standards though.

If 93% of white people had voted for Romney it certainly would have been labeled racist

 

[ACamp1900]

If 93% of white people had voted for Romney it certainly would have been labeled racist

lol... Let's be honest, to some, it was racist that ANY white people voted for Romney.....

 

[pkt77242]

Hilarious to me that Romney won demographics that earned more than $50k/year and Obama won the under $50k crowd. Maybe that is the overeducated philosophy PhDs serving up lattes at Starbucks pushing the post graduate degree stats over Romney but by and large not post graduate degree folks making a decent living.

Just so happens minorities are less educated and earn less, is it a function of race or a function of economics that drives the vote? I think for Hispanics it is economics, for blacks it is more confusing. Obama should not get racial credit for bringing in 93% of black vote because Dems have locked up that block tight as a drum for a long time. Race definitely drove that higher than usual and at a higher turnout. How you can view that as anything but racist to vote for someone based purely on the color of their skin is the ultimate in double standards though.

Not really true. The post grad group was significantly smaller then the 100K+ earning group and many postgrads don't earn 100K+. Someone with a Master of Education and MSW aren't going to make 100K. Heck I know quite a few PhDs teaching at smaller private schools making 75-80K.

Also while Obama did increase black voter turnout it only went from 11% of voters to 13%, an increase but not as large as some people believe (not saying you, just general some people).

 

[EddytoNow]

NDgradstudent is correct in one of his arguments. George Washington and others like him won't be voting for Obama. George Washington has been dead for 200 years. The only thing that will make NDgradstudent happy is to return to life as it existed in the late 18th century. After all, blacks weren't voting then. Women weren't voting then. The southwest still belonged to Mexico, so Mexican Americans weren't voting then. No one objected to stealing Native American land. A-a-h! Those were the good-old days. NDgradstudent can't understand what went wrong. He was born 200 years too late to benefit from those glory days.

 

[pkt77242]

If 93% of white people had voted for Romney it certainly would have been labeled racist

This is what I think is kind of funny. You do realize that black people were voting Democrat long before Obama right? Were they racist when they voted for Kerry in 2004? Or Gore in 2000?

Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004, Hell Gore got 90% in 2000. They didn't vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for Obama because he was a Democrat. Now I do agree that more black people came out to vote but even that was a small percent (2% increase in percentage of voters from 2004 to 2012).

How Groups Voted in 2004 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2000 - Roper Center

Or am I completely missing your point?

 

[pumpdog20]

insert "Obvious Troll" meme here - girl's setting these guys up and this no name panel or libs is dissecting 4 second clips to try to frame them all racists. Gotcha.

Rand Paul did the right thing and got away from the troll. For all we know he was running late for his next event. He is a little bit more in demand than Rep. King. He may also know King is about to make points on an issue with which he does not agree, guilt by association comes in to play.

If this is grounds for complete dismissal of a candidate in your opinion, then I have little faith your vote really up for grabs in the first place.

LOL, this is possibly the weakest argument on this thread yet.

 

[GATTACA!]

This is what I think is kind of funny. You do realize that black people were voting Democrat long before Obama right? Were they racist when they voted for Kerry in 2004? Or Gore in 2000?

Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004, Hell Gore got 90% in 2000. They didn't vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for Obama because he was a Democrat. Now I do agree that more black people came out to vote but even that was a small percent (2% increase in percentage of voters from 2004 to 2012).

How Groups Voted in 2004 - Roper Center

How Groups Voted in 2000 - Roper Center

I figured the italics were implied with my post. In any case I think the fact that upwards of 85% of one demographic consistently vote for one party tends to agree with Ndgradstudents argument that there is a common interest behind these votes. I think in this case race is mostly irrelevant. I would love if one of you guys could pull up a breakdown of the votes in terms of income. I would think the disproportionate number of African American dem votes has more to do with economic class rather than anything racial.

 

[pkt77242]

I figured the italics were implied with my post. In any case I think the fact that upwards of 85% of one demographic consistently vote for one party tends to agree with Ndgradstudents argument that there is a common interest behind these votes. I think in this case race is mostly irrelevant. I would love if one of you guys could pull up a breakdown of the votes in terms of income. I would think the disproportionate number of African American dem votes has more to do with economic class rather than anything racial.

Sorry.


By Income
<50K Obama won 60/38
50-90K Romney won 52/46
100K+ Romney won 54-44

 

[ACamp1900]

Sorry.


By Income
<50K Obama won 60/38
50-90K Romney won 52/46
100K+ Romney won 54-44

Damned wealth disparity kicked Romney in the nads...

 

[pkt77242]

I think what really hurt Romney was that women voted in favor of Obama 55/44. If Republicans can't change that number they will be in big trouble again.