The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2012, 04:21 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Did McCain really win white voters by the same margin Dubya did in 2000?

Mark Shields said so on PBS Newshour Friday night:

Quote:
John McCain carried white voters by 12 points in 2008. George W. Bush carried white voters by 12 points in 2000, the exact same number. The difference is the electorate changed. There are more Latinos voting and that is why Barack Obama could win a bigger landslide in 2008 than any Democrat except Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt.
Now granted, George W. Bush did lose the popular vote to Al Gore by a half percentage point (47.9 to 48.4), but for Obama to win by seven points instead of a half point eight years later with the same percentage of white voters is pretty amazing. I'm as big a believer as anyone in the "EDM" theory (Emerging Democratic Majority) that demographics is destiny; but I didn't think it was happening quite that fast. Anyone got a source of hard data to either confirm or refute this?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-02-2012, 06:03 AM
Algorithm Algorithm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Looks close, according to this source: 2000 election and 2008 election. Obama won 1 more point amongst whites vs. Gore, while whites dropped from 81% of the electorate to 74%. Obama's margin in other demographic categories seems much improved over Gore as well.

Keep in mind the demographic information is all based on exit polling.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-02-2012, 04:51 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Thanks, algorithm! Boy, this really puts a context behind the fury of the "Tea Party" (conservative old white people), and their "I want my country back" lamentations. This has (had) always been a "white man's country", and though whites are still a majority (albeit not for long), a coalition of nonwhites, women, and young people were strong enough to wrest the power away--which totally freaks them out.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-02-2012, 09:06 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Thanks, algorithm! Boy, this really puts a context behind the fury of the "Tea Party" (conservative old white people), and their "I want my country back" lamentations. This has (had) always been a "white man's country", and though whites are still a majority (albeit not for long), a coalition of nonwhites, women, and young people were strong enough to wrest the power away--which totally freaks them out.
I hadn't heard the Bush/McCain comparison, but I have heard a McCain/Reagan comparison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/we...14harwood.html

Quote:
In 1980, Mr. Reagan thrashed Jimmy Carter by winning 55 percent of the white vote. Mr. McCain, as it happens, matched that percentage in 2008, but lost decisively to Mr. Obama. The difference, according to exit polls, is that whites represented 74 percent of the overall electorate last year, down from 88 percent in 1980. At the same time, blacks and Hispanics collectively accounted for 22 percent of the vote in 2008, up from 12 percent in 1980.
The concept that the tea party is terrified of losing 'their country' is true. I think that is why the GOP is pushing voter suppression as a last ditch means of maintaining power. They know demographic trends are pushing them into minority status (people born after 1978 and non-whites aren't very pro-GOP), and they want to delay it as long as possible. In the 2012 election as many as 5 million people will not be able to vote due to all the voter suppression efforts.

Supposedly by 2020 millennials and non-whites will be over 51% of the electorate.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-02-2012 at 09:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-02-2012, 11:25 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,110
"Millennials?" Does that mean people born in the year 2000 and beyond?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-02-2012, 11:48 PM
Algorithm Algorithm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
"Millennials?" Does that mean people born in the year 2000 and beyond?
Though definitions vary, it generally means people who've reached adulthood since 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2012, 01:48 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I enjoy watching Republicans react to all this by paradoxically becoming more and more extreme in their far right purity instead of trying to adapt to changing demographics by moderating. As you say, they can fight this rear guard action for a bit, but it's all going to massively collapse at some point fairly soon, and I'll be popping the popcorn and enjoying the show (as I did in 2008). It may even be this fall: prognosticators are increasingly giving Democrats a chance to win back the House, while keeping the Senate and White House. But if the GOP does manage to eke out a win, it will be a last gasp or close to it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:57 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
"Millennials?" Does that mean people born in the year 2000 and beyond?
The term varies but means people born after 1978 (or 1982 in some definitions), so as of 2012 the electorate between the ages of 18-34. Generally speaking on economic, statist, science and social issues they do not agree with the GOP.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:12 AM
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 4,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The concept that the tea party is terrified of losing 'their country' is true. I think that is why the GOP is pushing voter suppression as a last ditch means of maintaining power....
Yup. And keep in mind that there is more than one voter-suppression tactic. IMHO, the stripping of convicted felons of their voting rights (which, I think varies from state to state) is worse than voter-ID shenanigans.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:41 AM
grude grude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Yup. And keep in mind that there is more than one voter-suppression tactic. IMHO, the stripping of convicted felons of their voting rights (which, I think varies from state to state) is worse than voter-ID shenanigans.
I have seen many people wonder WTF is the deal with the proliferation of felony crimes in the USA, every new cyber bulling law or whatever are all felonies. Then you remember being convicted of a felony is a path to disenfranchisement and it starts looking like class warfare.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-03-2012, 12:03 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I hadn't heard the Bush/McCain comparison, but I have heard a McCain/Reagan comparison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/we...14harwood.html



The concept that the tea party is terrified of losing 'their country' is true. I think that is why the GOP is pushing voter suppression as a last ditch means of maintaining power. They know demographic trends are pushing them into minority status (people born after 1978 and non-whites aren't very pro-GOP), and they want to delay it as long as possible. In the 2012 election as many as 5 million people will not be able to vote due to all the voter suppression efforts.

Supposedly by 2020 millennials and non-whites will be over 51% of the electorate.
I agree with you in general about the push for voter suppression, but I think you're wrong about them trying to "delay it as long as possible". They don`t seem to be nearly that self aware.

I think the most iconic example conceivable is when Glenn Beck kicked off some stupid campaign to "define the future" at a nursing home/retirement home. Nobody wants to feel irrelevant but I hope when I'm living in a retirement home I'll have enough perspective to realize I'm not going to be defining the future.

I don't think angry older white Americans have that perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-03-2012, 01:56 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,824
Quote:
I think the most iconic example conceivable is when Glenn Beck kicked off some stupid campaign to "define the future" at a nursing home/retirement home.
OK, cite? Because that's just hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:02 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Yup. And keep in mind that there is more than one voter-suppression tactic. IMHO, the stripping of convicted felons of their voting rights (which, I think varies from state to state) is worse than voter-ID shenanigans.
Yeah. Depriving ex-felons of voting. making it harder to vote. Making it harder to register to vote. Making early voting harder. Making absentee voting harder.

It adds up to 5 million disenfranchised voters by 2012, and may be more.

but hopefully (hopefully at least) these tactics will make people distance themselves from the GOP even further. The further the GOP goes into all on base mode where all they do is appeal to the 20% of the electorate who are their base the faster this will be over.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-03-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-03-2012, 06:58 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, cite? Because that's just hilarious.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/33398/

He announced his 100 year plan for the Future at The Villages in Florida on Nov 26, 2009. The press release mentions The Villages but it doesn't really emphasize it, but he was there telling a bunch of elderly people that they need to plan out the country's next 100 years.

They even have a fantastic theme song if you visit their site: http://www.thevillages.com/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-2012, 07:10 AM
Renee Renee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop View Post
They even have a fantastic theme song if you visit their site: http://www.thevillages.com/
Thanks for posting that. It truly is fantastic. I needed a laugh this morning.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.