GOP Makes Big Gains among White Voters

[krazen1211]

http://people-press.org/2011/07/22/gop-makes-big-gains-among-white-voters/

As the country enters into the 2012 presidential election cycle, the electorate’s partisan affiliations have shifted significantly since Barack Obama won office nearly three years ago. In particular, the Democrats hold a much narrower edge than they did in 2008, particularly when the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account.

While the number identifying as Republicans has remained relatively flat (28% in both 2008 and 2011), more independent voters lean to the GOP than did so in 2008 (16% now, 11% then). When leaners are combined with partisans, Democrats only have a four-point advantage among registered voters – 47% of voters are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party while 43% are Republicans or lean to the GOP. In 2008, Democrats held a 12 point advantage over Republicans (51% to 39%).



+4% overall, +6% among whites, and, and +9% among the under 30 crowd.

[Reaganfan]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

I thought I smelt something.

[Brittain33]

Dems are screwed if they can't win the "angry white male" vote.

[freepcrusher]

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

[krazen1211]

Dems are screwed if they can't win the "angry white male" vote.

In some parts of the country that is true.

What is important to note from this however is that the public has returned to its 2000/2004 patterns.

[Meeker]

Dems are screwed if they can't win the "angry white male" vote.

In some parts of the country that is true.

What is important to note from this however is that the public has returned to its 2000/2004 patterns.

Among Hispanics it hasn't. Good luck dealing with that in 20 years!

[King]

Angry white males are the silent ones? Since when?

[Username MechaRFK]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

Marry females  are likey to be Republicans then Democratic. Single females are more likey to vote Democratic in huge numbers. Though it was different pre Reagan era. Even Richard fu"king Nixon won against John F Kennedy for females, who I would've thought won the female vote. Angry white males are lost cause for the Dems to pick up on. Are there any candidate that the so called "angry white male" will not vote for in the Republican primary? I can't see Jon Huntsman being appealing to this group if he got the nomination.

[Username MechaRFK]

We already have this topic in the general U.S discussion FYI.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138537.0

[Napoleon]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

Marry females  are likey to be Republicans then Democratic. Single females are more likey to vote Democratic in huge numbers. Though it was different pre Reagan era. Even Richard fu"king Nixon won against John F Kennedy, who I would've thought won the female vote. Angry white males are lost cause for the Dems to pick up on. Are there any candidate that the so called "angry white male" will not vote for in the Republican primary? I can't see Jon Huntsman being appealing to this group if he got the nomination.

Huntsman supports a BBA.

[Username MechaRFK]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

Marry females  are likey to be Republicans then Democratic. Single females are more likey to vote Democratic in huge numbers. Though it was different pre Reagan era. Even Richard fu"king Nixon won against John F Kennedy, who I would've thought won the female vote. Angry white males are lost cause for the Dems to pick up on. Are there any candidate that the so called "angry white male" will not vote for in the Republican primary? I can't see Jon Huntsman being appealing to this group if he got the nomination.

Huntsman supports a BBA.

This group is more working class based on social and defense issues. They would look at him as someone who was apointed to the Obama as Ambassador of China  and this won't go over well with the anti-Obama people.

[Napoleon]

Ambassadors aren't part of the Cabinet and it isn't really a political position.

[DrScholl]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

That's what most of McCain's 46% was. It takes a lot more than those votes to win an election.

[krazen1211]

I can tell you first hand, there is a silent but angry white male vote out there that will not play out well for Obama next year. Females on the other hand are always in the bag for Democrats.

That's what most of McCain's 46% was. It takes a lot more than those votes to win an election.

That depends. President Reagan in 1980 and President Bush in 1988 won whites by 20%. Such is still enough.

[DrScholl]

That depends. President Reagan in 1980 and President Bush in 1988 won whites by 20%. Such is still enough.

Let's be clear, the OP was talking about angry white men in particular and that is not enough to win an election outright. It doesn't "depend" on anything, that's fact.

[Devils30]

The GOP has a 13% advantage among whites and McCain won whites by 13 (56%-43%) in 2008. In order to win a presidential election the GOP really needs at minimum around 60% of whites now and in many states 35-40% of whites is good enough for a Dem (VA, NC, NV etc)

[All Along The Watchtower]

White people react unfavorably to a black President.

Shocker.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Especially now, Obama's numbers with economically perilous groups are going to be bad. If the economy shows greater improvement between now and October 2012, he can get these voters back and could even have a shot at a few of the PUMAS (4 years is a lot of time to calm down)

[krazen1211]

The GOP has a 13% advantage among whites and McCain won whites by 13 (56%-43%) in 2008. In order to win a presidential election the GOP really needs at minimum around 60% of whites now and in many states 35-40% of whites is good enough for a Dem (VA, NC, NV etc)

The study indicates that 44% of whites held the Democratic party in a favorable view, and Obama got 43% of whites.

Now only 39% of whites hold the same view. He will likely require more than 39% of whites to win.

[krazen1211]

That depends. President Reagan in 1980 and President Bush in 1988 won whites by 20%. Such is still enough.

Let's be clear, the OP was talking about angry white men in particular and that is not enough to win an election outright. It doesn't "depend" on anything, that's fact.

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.

[krazen1211]

White people react unfavorably to a black President.

Shocker.

Whites reacted equally poorly to James Carter and Michael Dukakis. McGovern of course lost whites by 36%.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

As a young person, I would like to comment on the under 30 shift which I think is significant.

Many of us, including me, were tricked into believing Democrats were an anti-war Party.  That's the large reason for their huge margins in 2006 and 2008 amongst young voters.  Now that Obama and the Dems have been in charge, many of us have realized how naive we were.  Libya is a HUGE liability to Democrats with young people.  In the thread I posted on the general election poll section, I pointed out how Rasmussen shows Ron Paul actually beating Obama.  Kids my age love Dr. Paul because he's seen as being genuinely anti-war.  Romney's debate comments about pulling out of Afghanistan also didn't go unnoticed by younger voters (at least among those who pay attention to politics) and unsurprisingly he's also doing better vs Obama than the other GOP candidates amongst the under 30 crowd.

If the GOP can capitalize on Obama's wars and head in a more traditional conservative foreign policy direction (ala Taft and Coolidge), then the Democrat Party could be in big trouble with younger voters.  If I was the GOP, I'd be pounding home the Libya message.

[Brittain33]

White people react unfavorably to a black President.

Shocker.

Whites reacted equally poorly to James Carter and Michael Dukakis. McGovern of course lost whites by 36%.

The Anglo white share of the voting population has dropped significantly since 2000, let alone the 1970s.