Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What this means is that the white share of the vote has to increase 3% and the non-white share of the vote has to decrease 6% just to get the voting ratios back to where they were in 2008.
When has the Presidential vote gotten whiter than the previous Presidential election?
Here is the share of the electorate, by race, over the past 20 years:
A lot of Republicans seem to be clinging to this idea that the jump in non-white voting as a share of the electorate in 2008 (and the corresponding dip in the white share of the electorate) is a one-time thing that only happened because of the then-Senator Obama's race. Not so. It's a long-term trend.
Anyone who thinks the white share is going to actually increase this election is dreaming. I think most Republican demographers who actually know the numbers would be ecstatic if it just stayed static. But that's not going to happen, either.
How many are legally qualified to vote? I know such issues mean nothing to Dems but I suspect they would impact the percentages of actual electorate. Also in order for you race based analysis to work you'd have to assume static support among the races. Thus no whites ever switched from Dem to GOP.
Another flaw part of the diversification occurs because of younger voters every four years a new group of 18-22 year olds vote. There is little indication this group will rise to the same levels of their older cohort did in '08. In fact the opposite may occur.
Obama up 6 in PA...but they think the electorate will be 48% DEMS, 38% Reps, 14% other.
Now....in 2008, when every rock was turned over for every last left/dem vote.....democrats comprised...42% of electorate.
In other words, in this poll, the pollster is deceptively hiding FACT Romney is actually leading.
Remember, the GOP SWEPT up in PA in 2010.
I played around with PPP's breakdown based on party ID and applied it to 2004,2008 party ID breakout and you see very quickly how Obama can lose PA. Quite easily actually.
Obama up 6 in PA...but they think the electorate will be 48% DEMS, 38% Reps, 14% other.
Now....in 2008, when every rock was turned over for every last left/dem vote.....democrats comprised...42% of electorate.
In other words, in this poll, the pollster is deceptively hiding FACT Romney is actually leading.
Remember, the GOP SWEPT up in PA in 2010.
If you remember the GOP was all about jobs in 2010 and that is why they got in. You know how that turned out when they instead started attacking women.
You can pick and choose any poll you like but RCP has Obama up +3.9 in PA.
Obama up 6 in PA...but they think the electorate will be 48% DEMS, 38% Reps, 14% other.
Now....in 2008, when every rock was turned over for every last left/dem vote.....democrats comprised...42% of electorate.
In other words, in this poll, the pollster is deceptively hiding FACT Romney is actually leading.
Remember, the GOP SWEPT up in PA in 2010.
And is every other single pollster doing the same thing? The closest Romney has come in PA in the past two months is tying one poll - a poll done by a pollster that also had the only poll this year showing Romney with a lead.
How many are legally qualified to vote? I know such issues mean nothing to Dems but I suspect they would impact the percentages of actual electorate. Also in order for you race based analysis to work you'd have to assume static support among the races. Thus no whites ever switched from Dem to GOP.
Feel free to read my post again, where I discuss the ratios of the electorate, not the ratios of the populace at large.
Quote:
Another flaw part of the diversification occurs because of younger voters every four years a new group of 18-22 year olds vote. There is little indication this group will rise to the same levels of their older cohort did in '08. In fact the opposite may occur.
Right, right. Feel to look at the increase from 2008 to 2004, and note that it is very consistent with the three incremental increases preceding it. Or keep clicking your heels and insisting that this time, somehow, just maybe, because you really want it to be so -- it might be different!
In fact, feel free to read to next-to-last paragraph again (provided here for your ignoring pleasure! ): A lot of Republicans seem to be clinging to this idea that the jump in non-white voting as a share of the electorate in 2008 (and the corresponding dip in the white share of the electorate) is a one-time thing that only happened because of the then-Senator Obama's race. Not so. It's a long-term trend.
Really big sample size in the Pew poll, too. Obama at 50% and outside of the MoE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
):