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 11-19-2012, 06:22 PM
 
3,624 posts, read 2,966,160 times
Reputation: 1499

Advertisements

they can nominate a black guy as well, as we saw with obama getting 70 percent of the latino vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:00 AM
 
31,661 posts, read 14,614,583 times
Reputation: 8440
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
If Romney had won, they also would not self deport. Get over it, they are here, they are working, very often at jobs native born will not do anyway.

Now if one wants to discuss how to tighten the border to prevent this issue coming up 15 years up the road, awesome. But the 12 mill were staying, no matter who won, as talking the talk is easy, but walking the walk is tough.
They wouldn't self-deport if they couldn't work here anymore? Do tell! You get over it! Illegal immigrants have no right to be in this country much less working here. Most aren't doing jobs that Americans haven't always done and would still do for a fair wage. So you can put that lie to rest! Law abiding Americans will not tolerate another amnesty. The last time it was pushed was a few years ago and we shut down the phone lines in congress objecting to it and we will do the same again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:07 AM
 
25,060 posts, read 22,136,036 times
Reputation: 11576
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
another great presentation, OP--well done.

When I looked at the exit polls on Nov 7, the thing that jumped out at me was that Obama got 92%, 73%, and 70% respectively of black, Asian, and Hispanic votes. That was just about one quarter of the total electorate.

Why would these three groups, with quite divergent economic interests, all vote Democratic? The obvious explanation to me is that there is a widespread perception that the GOP is the home of the racist. Now I don't believe this about the GOP, but nonetheless in politics perception is reality.

Most voters don't seek out information, but just absorb it from the environment. They get it from sources like Kanye West, from Daily Show, the public ed system etc., i.e. the infotainment-sphere, which is mostly owned and operated by the left.

I learned years ago that when I meet a black person I have to be very careful about admitting to be a Republican. Many a time I noticed the negative body language; the step back, the near-gasp of shock, usually quickly shut down but still noticable, etc. This was tough for me since in my younger days I had a thing for black women, lol. But anyway, the point is, the perception exists.

I hardly think that conservatism in America is a dead letter quite yet, not when we still control the house and 29 of 50 governorships. But I do think that conservatives have our work cut out for us in overcoming this perception.
I agree 100% I've been saying this too, there is nothing wrong with the GOP's policies. The problem is that the GOP has an image problem, a big one to overcome. Whenever a minority thinks of the GOP, they think of a white baby boomer with a Confederate flag on their front yard, not the small business owner who employs people of color, is sympathetic to them but believes that hard work, not welfare, is the key to lift yourself up from poverty. I used to have that assumption about the GOP as well, that they love the white man and want to keep the minority down under their thumb. The truth is far from reality. The average Republican voter on the street is also not word smart like a liberal is. What a Republican says that could make sense, is easily spun by a liberal to imply that the Republican hates minorities (read: Democrats are mostly minorities on government handouts). While this is true, it's not going to win you friends. Instead of being negative, be positive. Realize that not everyone is going to rise up the economic ladder, capitalism would not work if that happened anyway. There must always be unemployed to keep inflation in check, Republicans MUST acknowledge this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:20 AM
 
17,026 posts, read 11,395,151 times
Reputation: 9000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Demographics

First, a look at the breakdown of the electorates from 1992 thru 2012:

White
1992 - 87%
1996 - 83%
2000 - 81%
2004 - 77%
2008 - 74%
2012 - 72%

African-American:
1992 - 8%
1996 - 10%
2000 - 10%
2004 - 11%
2008 - 13%
2012 - 13%

Hispanic:
1992 - 2%
1996 - 5%
2000 - 7%
2004 - 8%
2008 - 9%
2012 - 11%

Asian:
1992 - 1%
1996 - 1%
2000 - 2%
2004 - 2%
2008 - 2%
2012 - 3%

Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 1992 Presidential Election [1992 thru 2008 data]
Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com [2012 data]

Now let's analyze the twenty-year trend to project the 2016 electorate.

2016 projection:
White: 70%
African-American: 13%
Hispanic: 13%
Asian: 3%
Other: 1%

Estiamted 2016 turnout: 55.0%
[Turnout projection based on approximate average of 1992-2008 turnout and preliminary 2012 turnout estimates]
United States population in 2016: ~323,000,000
Approximately 74.3% of the United States populace is eligible to vote
Eligible electorate in 2016 will be approximately 240,000,000
55% turnout assumes 132,000,000 voters

2012 votes by race:
White: Romney 59%, Obama 39%
African-American: Obama 93%, Romney 6%
Hispanic: Obama 71%, Romney 27%
Asian: Obama 73%, Romney 26%
Other: Obama 58%, Romney 38%
Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Now, let's use the trending electoral breakdown to consider some 2016 outcomes.

Scenario #1 -- Demographic Repeat of 2012
White: R 59%, D 39% (R 54.5m, D 36.0m)
African-American: D 93%, R 6% (D 16.0m, R 1.0m)
Hispanic: D 71%, R 27% (12.2m, R 4.6m)
Asian: D 73%, R 26% (D 2.9m, R 1.0m)
Other: D 58%, R 38% (D 0.8m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 67.9 million, Republican nominee 61.6 million

If the various demographic groups vote the same way, the Democratic candidate's margin will increase from President Obama's current 3.7 million vote lead to 6.3 million votes. That is simply if nothing else changes.

But will we likely get such a repeat? No. So let's look at some other possibilities.

Scenario #2 -- All Numbers Strong for the GOP
White: R 60%, D 38% (R 55.4m, D 35.1m)
African-American: D 88%, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Republican nominee 65.2 million, Democratic nominee 64.0 million

In this case, I've assumed that everything will go well for Republicans. I've given them yet another point of the White vote, I've reverted the African-American vote to the Bush/Kerry numbers, I've reverted the Hispanic vote to the Bush/Gore numbers, I've clipped 10% off the Asian numbers and shifted them to the Republicans, and I've even given 3% of the 'Other" category to the GOP (this is a catch-all group that is probably fairly resistant to short-term movement).

This gets the GOP a narrow 1.2 million vote margin, that would have over an 80% change of translating into an Electoral College victory. But in order to get this narrow GOP victory, you have to assume pretty much every demographic trend goes the Republcans' way.

Scenario #3 -- Same as Scenario #2, but 2012 numbers for Whites
White: R 59%, D 39% (R 54.5m, D 36.0m)
African-American: D 88%, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 64.9 million , Republican nominee 64.3 million

This scenario assumes that the GOP has maxed out its share of the White vote. Not a bad assumption; it's hard to see Clinton or Cuomo or O'Malley, or whoever wins the 2016 Democratic nomination, doing any worse among Whites. The rest of the numbers are still very favorable to the GOP.

Still, the GOP loses the popular vote, with probably a 2/3rds chance of also losing the Electoral College.

Scenario #4 -- Same as #2 & #3, but 1% improvement on 2012 for Whites
White: R 58%, D 40% (R 53.6m, D 37.0m)
African-American: D% 88, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 65.9 million, Republican nominee 63.4 million.

These demographic numbers are still pretty good overall for the GOP. It would not be at all surprising to see someone like Clinton improve one percentage point for Democrats among Whites. And if that happens? It's all over, even assuming the GOP still manages to do considerably better with all other demographics. This is what is so important -- even demographic trends that are reasonably GOP-biased translate to a loss in 2016.

Scenario #5 -- Modest GOP gains on minority voting, Bush/Kerry numbers for Whites
White: R 58%, D 41% (R 53.6m, D 37.9m)
Black: D 90%, R 8% (D 15.4m, R 1.4m)
Hispanic: D 66%, R 32% (D 11.3m, R 5.5m)
Asian: D 68%, R 31% (D 2.7m, R 1.2m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 68.0 million, Republican nominee 62.2 million

This final number is what I consider more realistic. For all demographics, I've assumed a reasonable and modest rebound towards 50%. I've given the Bush/Kerry numbers to Whites, and assumed the GOP will peel a few percentages off the other groups. The result? A big Democratic victory.

And if the Democrats can manage to flip more than 1.5% of the White vote, it really becomes apocalyptic for the GOP.

Note that these projections are only for 2016. In 2020, it continues to get progressively worse for Republicans. By then, when the White vote is down to 67% or 68%, with Hispanics up to perhaps 15% and maybe Asians gaining 1%, even the rosiest scenario above for the GOP will result in a clear loss.

This is just some food for thought. I advocate nothing. I am just showing why the Republican Party, in order to win Presidential elections in the future, absolutely must find a way to get non-whites to vote for them in greater numbers. Much greater numbers.

Great detailed analysis. It shows very clearly that the nation is doomed. Continued democratic "spend to oblivion" policies are insuring the destruction of the nation.

That was why 2012 was essentially the last chance for the nation. There will be more and more citizens who continue to vote themselves generous gifts from the treasury assuring our insolvency and the subsequent break up of the nation.

The US is finished
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Montgomery Village
4,120 posts, read 3,698,661 times
Reputation: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Great detailed analysis. It shows very clearly that the nation is doomed. Continued democratic "spend to oblivion" policies are insuring the destruction of the nation.

That was why 2012 was essentially the last chance for the nation. There will be more and more citizens who continue to vote themselves generous gifts from the treasury assuring our insolvency and the subsequent break up of the nation.

The US is finished
And this is why you lost the election. This "if we don't win, everything is ruined" mentality is stupid. Get some common sense. Maybe you should stop betting against the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:36 AM
 
755 posts, read 612,405 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Great detailed analysis. It shows very clearly that the nation is doomed. Continued democratic "spend to oblivion" policies are insuring the destruction of the nation.

That was why 2012 was essentially the last chance for the nation. There will be more and more citizens who continue to vote themselves generous gifts from the treasury assuring our insolvency and the subsequent break up of the nation.

The US is finished
I'll file that prediction alongside your myriad "Romney in a landslide!" pre-election posts which litter these threads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:49 AM
 
10,963 posts, read 7,762,034 times
Reputation: 3113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Julian Castro?

I'm a bit dubious at the notion of a mayor on the ticket -- albeit the 7th largest city in the United States. Still...

But I'm skeptical that Hispanics are going to flock to a candidate just because a Hispanic is on the ticket. It would give a candidate a certain bump, I think, but I don't think there would be any radical shift in voting numbers.
It only makes sense if Texas is anywhere near in play for the Democrats in 2016, which I don't think will be the case. But hey I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 07:57 AM
 
58 posts, read 40,041 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
That was why 2012 was essentially the last chance for the nation. There will be more and more citizens who continue to vote themselves generous gifts from the treasury assuring our insolvency and the subsequent break up of the nation.

The US is finished
Everyone deserves a full life with dignity. Peace be upon you, friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 08:08 AM
 
755 posts, read 612,405 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
It only makes sense if Texas is anywhere near in play for the Democrats in 2016, which I don't think will be the case. But hey I could be wrong.
Nate Silver did an article around the time Romney tabbed Ryan, showing how historically the degree to which state of a running mate deviated from that state's normal relation to the national vote. I think it suggested something like a 5% benefit from a given state due to a running mates. However, I think that would probably matter more where a running mate represents the state at large (ie, Governor or Senator), as opposed to just being a Congressman in a state with multiple districts, or a mayor, as in the case of Castro.

I was just trying to follow up with another poster's thoughts on a prominent Hispanic from the Democratic Party; Castro came to mind. There are others who hold higher or more prominent offices (Menendez, Salazar, Villaraigosa, etc.) but none of them seem to hold much potential on a national ticket.

I agree that Texas seems unlikely to be in play for the Democrats as early as 2016.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 08:17 AM
 
755 posts, read 612,405 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone-Ranger View Post
For the extremists rednecks like you.

For the New America?. It's just starting and i'm all fired up to move this country "Forward" without losers like YOU.
They just want to be right.

If the choice is seeing America thrive under a President they hate, and seeing America fail, they'll take the latter. In a heartbeat.
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
Similar Threads
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