U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2012, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,289,472 times
Reputation: 1376

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Actually, 18-29 year old whites went for Romney by 7. While this is a good sign in and of itself, it really makes why the Republicans lost 18-29 year olds overall by 21 a bigger problem.

The GOP's problem with young voters, more than stances on social issues which could be changed (or that young voters care less about as they get older) or more than young voters not being as wealthy as older voters, is that they are disproportionately minority.
Link?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2012, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Moderate conservative for Obama.
833 posts, read 532,289 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
You do realize your party has different factions, don't you? Regardless, you conveniently changed the subject because you didn't want to discuss what I was discussing.

I asked if the 60 million people who voted for Romney are all racist, because that's what you have implied. I also asked if a majority of some of the groups who voted for Romney, such as 18-29 year old whites, whites in California, and whites in the Northeast, are racist.

What the hell are you on?
My votes have always been casted towards conservatives , im in the so called Moderates category.

Just this time, i went with President Obama and i may do for some time. Thanks to the bigots within the gop, i realized being a social liberal aint so bad, cant be any worse than being a fiscal conservative like me.

Since i am a Minority, i found refuge with the Dems. I can be who i want to be and they'll accept me regardless. gops would ridicule me and the likes of meghan mccain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,828,098 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Link?
2012 Fox News Exit Poll | Politics | Fox News

I know you will flame me for linking to Fox, but it's the only place I could find it with it broken down by age and race combined. It's the same exit poll that's done for most of the media, it's not a Fox News specific exit poll.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,289,472 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Actually, 18-29 year old whites went for Romney by 7. While this is a good sign in and of itself, it really makes why the Republicans lost 18-29 year olds overall by 21 a bigger problem.

The GOP's problem with young voters, more than stances on social issues which could be changed (or that young voters care less about as they get older) or more than young voters not being as wealthy as older voters, is that they are disproportionately minority.
It isn't really good news, that 18-29 group underperformed for you against every other age group, by 10%. Your youth isn't following you. And apparently your angry white youth was less likely to vote.

Mittens did do well in one metric, he got 97% of the angry vote. So much for liberal being the anger ones.

Last edited by buzzards27; 11-17-2012 at 08:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
20,892 posts, read 41,790,641 times
Reputation: 14153
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And Bush did better in his second election -- while Obama did much worse. Obama lost millions of votes from 2008 to 2012.
Take ye small, illusory comfort where ye may. Winning is winning. Huge margins in 2008, very nice comfortable margins in 2012 - and that with a very slow economy.

I call that a BIG WIN. And, Obama legitimately won BOTH elections.

Sadly, same CANNOT be said for Bush. In 2000, Bush got 500,000 FEWER VOTES than Al Gore, and he was ultimately SELECTED by the Supreme Court, so anything would look better in 2004 - in which Bush stole Ohio, btw - election fraud/vote flipping. Pitiful and pathetic you'd even bring up that awful debacle. Thanks be to Bush, US now has a bankrupted Treasury, run unfunded wars. given unfunded tax breaks, suffered a major financial collapse resulting in thousands of closed businesses, millions unemployed - many never to work again, huge drain on our social services networks, thousands homeless, millions on food stamps.
Yes, indeedy, you can be VERY proud of Bush. We need another one just like him and Cheney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 08:45 PM
 
755 posts, read 614,908 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And Bush did better in his second election -- while Obama did much worse. Obama lost millions of votes from 2008 to 2012.
Okay, I'm taking notes here!

Let me get this straight:
*Obama won re-election by a larger margin than Bush (3.0% to 2.4%)
*Obama got more Electoral College votes than Bush (a lot more: 332 to 286)

And all this is what?

Bad news for Obama!
Terrible news for Democrats!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,828,098 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
It isn't really good news, that 18-29 group underperformed for you against every other age group, by 10%.
Republicans have always done worse among the young than among middle-aged and older voters. That's nothing new.

Obama won 18-29 year old whites in 2008 by 11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
And apparently your angry white youth was less likely to vote.

Mittens did do well in one metric, he got 97% of the angry vote. So much for liberal being the anger ones.


There are plenty of angry liberals...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,828,098 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Take ye small, illusory comfort where ye may. Winning is winning. Huge margins in 2008, very nice comfortable margins in 2012 - and that with a very slow economy.
But wait - I thought the economy was wonderfully improving. If it is, then shouldn't Obama have won in a landslide and wasn't he unbeatable? Or should have been an easy win for Republicans and that we couldn't win is a sign we're doomed as a party? You can't have it both ways...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
I call that a BIG WIN. And, Obama legitimately won BOTH elections.

Sadly, same CANNOT be said for Bush. In 2000, Bush got 500,000 FEWER VOTES than Al Gore, and he was ultimately SELECTED by the Supreme Court, so anything would look better in 2004 - in which Bush stole Ohio, btw - election fraud/vote flipping. Pitiful and pathetic you'd even bring up that awful debacle.
2000 - we have something called the electoral college. Sorry that you don't like it. If Obama had won in the electoral college and Romney had won the popular vote this election, something tells me you wouldn't have minded. As far as SCOTUS stopping the recount in Florida, how long were they supposed to allow recounts to continue for?

2004 - Why didn't Kerry contest the results? There was no proof of fraud. Bush won the state by 136,000 votes. And, even if Kerry had won it, we would have had a huge difference between the popular vote and electoral college result, something you have suggested you wouldn't like (since Bush won nationally by 2.4%). I should point out that Bush won Ohio by a larger margin than Obama won it by this year (and Ohio was supposed to be Obama's "firewall" state).

Seriously, with this 2004 Ohio BS you all sound like the unskewed polls nuts, the birthers, etc. It's just another conspiracy theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Thanks be to Bush, US now has a bankrupted Treasury, run unfunded wars. given unfunded tax breaks, suffered a major financial collapse resulting in thousands of closed businesses, millions unemployed - many never to work again, huge drain on our social services networks, thousands homeless, millions on food stamps.
Yes, indeedy, you can be VERY proud of Bush. We need another one just like him and Cheney.
And everything that happened/is happening was all Bush's fault? Got it...

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 11-17-2012 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2012, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,828,098 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Okay, I'm taking notes here!

Let me get this straight:
*Obama won re-election by a larger margin than Bush (3.0% to 2.4%)
*Obama got more Electoral College votes than Bush (a lot more: 332 to 286)

And all this is what?

Bad news for Obama!
Terrible news for Democrats!
Let's see here....A 3.0% margin to a 2.4% margin...that's not exactly a big difference.

Malamute's point was that Obama lost a significant amount of support between 2012 and 2008. Bush gained a significant amount of support between 2000 and 2004. Also keep in mind that the 2004 election was much higher turnout than 2000, unlike 2012 when compared to 2008. Bush gained millions and millions of votes (10 million or so I believe) between his two elections. Obama lost millions and millions of votes between his two elections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2012, 09:16 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,736,443 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Let's see here....A 3.0% margin to a 2.4% margin...that's not exactly a big difference.

Malamute's point was that Obama lost a significant amount of support between 2012 and 2008. Bush gained a significant amount of support between 2000 and 2004. Also keep in mind that the 2004 election was much higher turnout than 2000, unlike 2012 when compared to 2008. Bush gained millions and millions of votes (10 million or so I believe) between his two elections. Obama lost millions and millions of votes between his two elections.

Four more years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top