Obama's white vote percentage by state.

[JohnCA246]

I found this on the net. It is from mathematical speculation rather than an actual poll, but seems about right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1159759/-Percent-of-White-vote-won-by-Obama-2012-by-state

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Obama had to have gotten 50% in WA, OR, & probably MN, IA & WI. Also, how the F could Obama get below 20% in OK when he got over 30% of the vote? Absurd.

[pbrower2a]

Obama had to have gotten 50% in WA, OR, & probably MN, IA & WI. Also, how the F could Obama get below 20% in OK when he got over 30% of the vote? Absurd.

Black, Latino, and American Indian voters.

President Obama probably got a 70%+ share of American Indian vote nationwide, but nothing like that in Oklahoma. American Indians are more assimilated politically and economically in Oklahoma than in Arizona or South Dakota. They are a large part of the electorate in Oklahoma. 

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Obama had to have gotten 50% in WA, OR, & probably MN, IA & WI. Also, how the F could Obama get below 20% in OK when he got over 30% of the vote? Absurd.

Black, Latino, and American Indian voters.

President Obama probably got a 70%+ share of American Indian vote nationwide, but nothing like that in Oklahoma. American Indians are more assimilated politically and economically in Oklahoma than in Arizona or South Dakota. They are a large part of the electorate in Oklahoma. 

But in the last couple of elections, if you trust CNN exit polls at all, Kerry & Obama were getting above 25% with both male and female whites in OK. Obama's share of the vote declined 1%, so I don't think he got below 20% of whites this time. I just don't trust these numbers.

[old timey villain]

So the white vote in Georgia went from 23% (2008) to 14%? Not sure if I buy it.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Some of these, especially GA (I don't see the plummet in the results) and WV (it's such a lily-white state that Obama's % of the white vote is basically what he got overall), seem off. Interesting that some of these seem to contradict the exit polls; Obama is shown doing much better with Northeastern whites and a lot worse with those in the Pacific Northwest. Utah has to be wrong as well.

[memphis]

Tennessee looks about right. Obama seems to have gotten about a quarter of the white vote just about everywhere. A little higher along the Tennessee River. A little less along the Mississippi. But pretty damn consistent overall.

[7,052,770]

Is he assuming the electorate is demographically identical to the state? That's an error...

[memphis]

Is he assuming the electorate is demographically identical to the state? That's an error...

It works pretty well in places, like my homestate and yours, that are mainly black and white. It's the Hispanics and Asians that make things complicated.

[Adam Griffin]

So the white vote in Georgia went from 23% (2008) to 14%? Not sure if I buy it.

Some of these, especially GA (I don't see the plummet in the results) and WV (it's such a lily-white state that Obama's % of the white vote is basically what he got overall), seem off. Interesting that some of these seem to contradict the exit polls; Obama is shown doing much better with Northeastern whites and a lot worse with those in the Pacific Northwest. Utah has to be wrong as well.

Yeah, this is garbage. Anyone can easily run the preliminary results for GA and compare them to 2008; white support for Obama was somewhere between 21-22%.

[Sbane]

Tennessee looks about right. Obama seems to have gotten about a quarter of the white vote just about everywhere. A little higher along the Tennessee River. A little less along the Mississippi. But pretty damn consistent overall.

Except around 40% in Davidson County. Probably in Chattanooga and good chunks of Memphis and Knoxville too.

[7,052,770]

Is he assuming the electorate is demographically identical to the state? That's an error...

It works pretty well in places, like my homestate and yours, that are mainly black and white. It's the Hispanics and Asians that make things complicated.

I don't think it works very well in Mississippi.  Unless it was randomly different this year and I didn't hear about it, black turnout is always worse than white turnout, so the electorate is whiter than the general population.  Sure, it's a ballpark, but not close enough for a chart like this.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is he assuming the electorate is demographically identical to the state? That's an error...

It works pretty well in places, like my homestate and yours, that are mainly black and white. It's the Hispanics and Asians that make things complicated.

I don't think it works very well in Mississippi.  Unless it was randomly different this year and I didn't hear about it, black turnout is always worse than white turnout, so the electorate is whiter than the general population.  Sure, it's a ballpark, but not close enough for a chart like this.

The exit polls have blacks as 36% of voters this year in MS, versus 33% in 2008.  Nationally, the participation of blacks has been relatively close to the VAP in the past two presidential elections (both about 13%).

[pbrower2a]

In EVERY state that President Obama won at least 41.8% of the white non-Hispanic vote, he won.  Because those states include Ohio and Colorado (if not Nevada, Virginia, and Florida) that was enough to win re-election. The state that he got the highest percentage of the white non-Hispanic vote and still lost was Montana, whose electorate is 88.9% white non-Hispanic, where he got 38% of the white non-Hispanic vote. Then come Florida and Nevada, states with huge amounts of Hispanic vote, in which President Obama won between 37% and 38% of the vote. The only state that Barack Obama won despite getting less than 35% of the white non-Hispanic vote is Virginia, which has some unusual demographics.

A Presidential candidate can get away with winning 38% of the white non-Hispanic vote so long as he compiles percentages of the black and Hispanic vote that Barack Obama won. Against such numbers a Republican is going to need to win nearly 44% of the white vote to win -- which would have been enough to flip Colorado and Pennsylvania, the tipping-point states of 2012 and probably 2016, respectively.

I could discuss Asians and American Indians -- but the only state in which these populations could have mattered were Nevada and Oklahoma. It is safe to say that American Indians in Oklahoma are economically and politically assimilated into the white population to an inordinate degree. Counties with large minority populations in Oklahoma all went for Romney.

....Barack Obama as 'one of their own'? First of all, his African heritage is vastly different from that of most African-Americans, descendants in whole or part of slaves kept in the Old South. His wife is such an African-American... so he is well accepted among such African-Americans. He relates well. He is definitely not Hispanic. So what does he do to appeal to Hispanics?

More significantly one needs to ask what the Republicans have done to lose  the Hispanic vote so badly. Racism? Hispanic-Americans (unless black) have never experienced quite the racist hostility that blacks have experienced anywhere. They have been treated legally as white with respect to laws against intermarriage (you ought to see the old Arizona statute against mixed marriages -- Mexican-Americans could legally marry non-Hispanic whites, but like whites they were prohibited from marrying blacks, Asians, or Native Americans) and with non-discrimination on voting rights. Such is a consequence of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ceded a huge chunk of the current US from Mexico to the US. Its terms are still in force.

Another 'group' needs be looked at -- Asians. Barack Obama did well among them. To be sure, 'Asian' can include people as diverse as Iranians and Filipinos, but if there is any common thread among all 'Asian' groups it is that all honor education as the measure of social position. Where there is no Hispanic aristocracy (the Anglo population assimilated it in the Southwest) formal education trumps all.

Middle-class Hispanics are smart, educated, and involved in formal organizations. With its anti-intellectualism the Republican Party offends them because it trivializes and disparages the cause of their success. That is also how the Republican Party lost the 'Asian' vote and has failed to win the 'Jewish' vote.    
    
  

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I could discuss Asians and American Indians -- but the only state in which these populations could have mattered were Nevada and Oklahoma. It is safe to say that American Indians in Oklahoma are economically and politically assimilated into the white population to an inordinate degree. Counties with large minority populations in Oklahoma all went for Romney.

....Barack Obama as 'one of their own'? First of all, his African heritage is vastly different from that of most African-Americans, descendants in whole or part of slaves kept in the Old South. His wife is such an African-American... so he is well accepted among such African-Americans. He relates well. He is definitely not Hispanic. So what does he do to appeal to Hispanics?

 

When it comes to the significance of the Native vote, why NV and OK but not NM or AK?

It's very easy for me to imagine why any group of people who feels they have been historically marginalized could identify with Obama - and what he represents in terms of people with diverse backgrounds (in Obama's case both black and transnational) having an opportunity to succeed.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well obviously some assumptions had to be made in the absence of exit polls. I wonder how much you could re-derive the exit polls from precinct level results and demographic information.

[GMantis]

There is an alternate exit poll by Reuters, with a considerably larger sample size:
http://elections.reuters.com/#poll