GOP Makes Big Gains among White Voters (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 07:32:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  GOP Makes Big Gains among White Voters (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: GOP Makes Big Gains among White Voters  (Read 3643 times)
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« on: July 23, 2011, 04:22:49 PM »

I think the democrats need to go to every beach community, every inner city ghetto, and every college campus and basically conduct massive voter registration drives to ensure maximum turnout to offset any gains the republicans are making in other areas.

Well isn't that a great idea!  I mean, basically 2008 was the pinnacle of Obama's get out the vote campaign with anti-war college students and Black voters.  You seem to think that that enthusiasm was not unprecedented.  He's not going to be able to replicate it. 

Plus the Angry white vote in 2008 was over the Iraq war spending, and not just the economy.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2011, 01:31:03 PM »

[
Let's be clear, you didn't actually read the OP. If you had, you would notice that females have moved more Republican than men have.

The post that I quoted by ReaganFan spoke of angry white men being the deciding the election and that's what I was referring to. I mistakenly referred to it as the OP, but the point stands, angry white men already came out in 2008 in droves, there aren't anymore for Republican to tap into.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The White male vote was a swing vote who voted for Obama based on anti-war, the economic problems under Bush in 2008, and general anti-Bush sentiment.  The White Male came out in droves, but they voted for Obama.
Now they are disenchanted with Obama and the continuing economic problems, and they will vote for the GOP candidate.  I don't think Obama can win with just Black voters and White female voters. 
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2011, 01:07:09 PM »

[
Let's be clear, you didn't actually read the OP. If you had, you would notice that females have moved more Republican than men have.

The post that I quoted by ReaganFan spoke of angry white men being the deciding the election and that's what I was referring to. I mistakenly referred to it as the OP, but the point stands, angry white men already came out in 2008 in droves, there aren't anymore for Republican to tap into.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The White male vote was a swing vote who voted for Obama based on anti-war, the economic problems under Bush in 2008, and general anti-Bush sentiment.  The White Male came out in droves, but they voted for Obama.
Now they are disenchanted with Obama and the continuing economic problems, and they will vote for the GOP candidate.  I don't think Obama can win with just Black voters and White female voters.  

White males voted 57-41 for McCain (a margin slightly smaller than Reagan's national margin in 1984).

If we're looking at "angry" white males, in the broadest sense white men prone to anger are presumably more Republican than white men as a whole (being disproportionately Southern and socially conservative), so that would put them about 62-36. If we go by the Wikipedia definition of angry white men as "a white male who holds traditional conservative views", then they would be much more Republican. Either way, angry white males are far too Republican for the Democrats to attempt to win a majority of (though they can of course try to reduce the margins they lose by).

But overall I think these demographic exercises are pretty useless. They're the fodder of lazy journalists desperate to spin stories out of voting patterns. Someone like Nate Silver would never put much weight on such breakdowns, except to criticise those who do. It can matter for electoral strategy, but as a form of prognotistication it's almost certainly better to just look at polling for all voters (or all voters in swing states). Ultimately, if a candidate can get to 270 electoral votes, it doesn't matter what the breakdown of the coalition look like.

According to the CNN exit poll website:
McCain got White males: 57% to 41%
George W Bush in 2004 got White Males: 62% to 37%

So Obviously, Obama improved his White Male vote from Kerry.  Obama got 4% higher than Kerry in White Males; and McCain lost 5% of the White Male vote. 
Therefore, it is accurate to say that Obama was able to get a White Male swing vote of 4-5%

Angry White males also voted for Perot in 1992

Yes, Obama was helped by the high Black voter turnout, but I think he would not have won the election without the 5% of White Males who swung to him in 2008.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2011, 11:42:10 AM »

[
Let's be clear, you didn't actually read the OP. If you had, you would notice that females have moved more Republican than men have.

The post that I quoted by ReaganFan spoke of angry white men being the deciding the election and that's what I was referring to. I mistakenly referred to it as the OP, but the point stands, angry white men already came out in 2008 in droves, there aren't anymore for Republican to tap into.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The White male vote was a swing vote who voted for Obama based on anti-war, the economic problems under Bush in 2008, and general anti-Bush sentiment.  The White Male came out in droves, but they voted for Obama.
Now they are disenchanted with Obama and the continuing economic problems, and they will vote for the GOP candidate.  I don't think Obama can win with just Black voters and White female voters. 
No. White male vote is never a swing vote in a presidential. Ever. Check out any exit poll from any year. White men, as a whole, are reliably at least 60-40 GOP voters.

This is quite simply wrong.  McCain lost 5% of the white male vote in 2008 compared to 2004; and obama gained 4% of the white male vote.  This definitely made a difference in the close swing states, since there are far more white males than black male voters in this country.

According to the CNN exit poll website:
McCain got White males: 57% to 41%
George W Bush in 2004 got White Males: 62% to 37%
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 09:47:26 AM »

[
Let's be clear, you didn't actually read the OP. If you had, you would notice that females have moved more Republican than men have.

The post that I quoted by ReaganFan spoke of angry white men being the deciding the election and that's what I was referring to. I mistakenly referred to it as the OP, but the point stands, angry white men already came out in 2008 in droves, there aren't anymore for Republican to tap into.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  The White male vote was a swing vote who voted for Obama based on anti-war, the economic problems under Bush in 2008, and general anti-Bush sentiment.  The White Male came out in droves, but they voted for Obama.
Now they are disenchanted with Obama and the continuing economic problems, and they will vote for the GOP candidate.  I don't think Obama can win with just Black voters and White female voters. 
No. White male vote is never a swing vote in a presidential. Ever. Check out any exit poll from any year. White men, as a whole, are reliably at least 60-40 GOP voters.

This is quite simply wrong.  McCain lost 5% of the white male vote in 2008 compared to 2004; and obama gained 4% of the white male vote.  This definitely made a difference in the close swing states, since there are far more white males than black male voters in this country.

According to the CNN exit poll website:
McCain got White males: 57% to 41%
George W Bush in 2004 got White Males: 62% to 37%

I think you just have different definitions of "swing vote". There are a significant number of white male swing voters, but white males as a whole are unlikely to "swing" between plurality support for the two main parties.

But these white male voters, usually white Catholic males, make up higher numbers of the electorate than any other significant voting group including Black voters, other minority groups, and female voters.  Keep in mind, White Males also have more money, so their financial donations to specific candidates will influence an election. 
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2011, 05:19:00 PM »

Head, meet desk. Again.

White men, wether happy or angry, vote overwhelmingly for the republicans. There is nothing the democrats can do to change this without losing their base support. In a good year like 2008 they might gain a few points compared to a relatively neutral year like 2000, but even so they'll still lose by a significant margin. The group, as a whole, does not swing, even if a small percentage of its members do.

How do you explain how Obama won if he didn't have the support of White Males?  Do White Catholics count as White Males?  I would take 5% more of the White Male vote versus any other smaller minority group because that will win the election. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 13 queries.