« The Republican Party’s white voter problem | Main | Ohio exit poll, in-depth analysis »

November 08, 2012

Comments

High black turnout aka vote fraud

Enough whites to exceed the margin of fraud... not easy to do.

Get out the Dem vote is easy to do when Dem votes are color coded into people's skin.

Seems like Great Lakes/Rust Belt whites who dislike Obama still stayed home because they couldn't connect with Romney:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

Repubs will only start winning again when they work like hell to get out the white vote. I think until now Repubs have assumed that get-out-the-vote efforts always help Dems but that is wrong thinking. Party democrats treat politics as their religion.

Turnout by whites in Ohio was terrible considering that whites used to have a *higher* turnout.

Given that Obama is harmful to blacks on many levels (hispanic immigration which pushes them out of their communities and replaces them on the job, joblessness, hostility to faith) it says a lot about black solidarity that nobody ever breaks rank. Maryland's number one legislative opponent of gay marriage, Delegate Rev. Emmitt Burns, who made opposition to gay marriage the cause of his life for many years before being steamrolled by Obama on it, continues to support Obama.

Well this will make you feel better, Puerto Rico wants to join the fiasco:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20238272

Blacks will not turn out for vague things like constitutional amendments held in off years. They are all personality driven.

Therefor the way forward is to pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting the expansion of Federal powers. ie give an actual definition of the Commerce Clause that Federal court would then be obliged to follow.

The people voting on that would be either the state legislatures, held by the GOP, or a voting group that is more heavily white.

I had already read the link Camlost posted. It makes a good point that higher minority percentages don't necessarily mean higher minority turnout. Minorities could be a higher percentage because white turnout was lower. But I'm not sure how to square this with the that votes for Obama were down 10 million from 08 whereas votes for Romney were pretty flat from what McCain got. So if there was lower white turnout it would seem that it hurt Obama more than Romney. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

I had already read the link Camlost posted. It makes a good point that higher minority percentages don't necessarily mean higher minority turnout. Minorities could be a higher percentage because white turnout was lower. But I'm not sure how to square this with the fact that votes for Obama were down 10 million from 08 whereas votes for Romney were pretty flat from what McCain got. So if there was lower white turnout it would seem that it hurt Obama more than Romney. Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Best analysis I've encountered is over at Sailer's place. Some take-home lessons:

* Romney did better than McCain with most demographics, including blacks (but not well enough to win, obviously). Romney improved with 28 listed demographics, decreased with only 7.

* Romney did worse with Hispanic voters than McCain, but the difference was insignificant overall.

* Turnout was low, below 2008 and 2004.

* Romney actually did rather well. Probably no other Republican could have done better.

* The catastrophic failure of the GWB administration still resonates loudly with voters, who rightly blame the GOP for the current economic mess.

* If the next four years are like the last four, the Democrats will be favored again in 2016, although the race may be closer.

And I agree with you about abortion, although I don't think it's a decisive issue.

I think I can answer my own question.

1 Minority turnout was the highest PERCENTAGE its ever been.

2 The GOP got the highest percentage of the white vote its ever gotten.

3 Obama votes were down from 08 while GOP presidential votes were flat.

This suggests that, regardless of what happened at the local level, on a national level white Democrats stayed home.

"Repubs have assumed that get-out-the-vote efforts always help Dems but that is wrong thinking."

Wrong. Republicans have been doing GOTV since at least 2004 esp in Ohio. I limit the scope because wasn't involved until then. But it's nasty work, calling up people and telling them to vote for GOP candidates. Our people are smarter and don't need to be told, or they're pissed off and want to argue.

"The catastrophic failure of the GWB administration still resonates loudly with voters, who rightly blame the GOP for the current economic mess." -- Black Death

I agree that Bush's presidency was politically catastrophic for the GOP and is an albatross around their necks. But I disagree with the second part. One can blame Bush for starting the wars. And one can blame the tax cuts for adding to the deficit. But the 2007-2009 recession wasn't Bush's fault. It was part of the natural business cycle. Neither was the housing bubble / banking crisis Bush's fault. That was caused by the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Bush wasn't even president in 1999. The FSMA was sponsored by a GOP congress with overwhelming Democrat support and signed by Clinton. The reason Bush gets the blame for it is because he was unlucky enough to be in office when it popped. And people are so emotional over it that they just want to blame someone rather than try to understand what really happened.

PS- The recession popped the housing bubble which then led to the banking crisis. But the recession didn't cause the housing bubble or banking crisis. The conditions for the housing bubble and banking crisis were already there. But try putting that on a bumper sticker or explaining it in a 30 second campaign ad. It's a lot easier to say "Bush's fault".

By obsessing on identity politics do Republicans reinforce the argument that IQ tests are too narrow a measure of human, or even mammalian, intelligence? Mass. and Wis are fairly white....

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Mitt-Romney-Ryan-first-presidential-ticket-to-lose-both-home-states-since-1972/articleshow/17137617.cms

Mitt Romney-Ryan first presidential ticket to lose both home states since 1972


@destructure: Clinton may have passed the laws but bush, and republicans in general, are the big pushers of free enterprise and are unwilling or unable to reform markets even when existing rules have clearly undesirable outcomes.

Pat Buchanan figured out how to win white Ohio voters. Its a solved problem: economically liberal and socially conservative.

Anyone running a campaign defending too big to fail has no business arguing HBD.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/phil-gramm-glass-steagall-financial-crisis_n_1705610.html

Phil Gramm: Glass-Steagall Repeal Didn't Have 'Anything To Do With The Financial Crisis'



"Mitt Romney-Ryan first presidential ticket to lose both home states since 1972" -- james edwards

That's because they both came from states that nearly always go Democrat. They would have lost their home states even if they had won the election. But people like to focus on ridiculous things like the "Redskin rule".

Although one can expect Democrats to make hay out of Romney & Ryan losing their home states. It's just another way to say, "In your face!" and exaggerate their victory in order to claim a mandate. Fortunately, voter turnout was way down and the election was too close for them to have a mandate.

[HS: Yet both states have voted Republican in past elections, and both states are white states and Republicans are supposed to have the advantage with white voters.]

Where is your Glenda Moore story?

"Wrong. Republicans have been doing GOTV since at least 2004 esp in Ohio. I limit the scope because wasn't involved until then. But it's nasty work, calling up people and telling them to vote for GOP candidates. Our people are smarter and don't need to be told, or they're pissed off and want to argue."

Thanks for doing more than most...

Serious GOTV needs to involve whole armies of people going door to door *before* and trying to get people to vote absentee or early, and then if they haven't voted early visiting them again at their door on the day of the election.

This is totally doable -- the post office visits every single house in america every single day... can the republican party not do it for two days every four years in a few swing states?

Pathetic.

This is in line with Sailer's analysis that Republican investment in politics is so skimpy in relation to, say, sports.

If the GOTV people visit from out of state, even better. 'I traveled 500 miles to see you because in my state votes don't count and gosh I wish I my vote counted like yours does. Can you at least go to the elementary school 3 blocks away please?' Who would say no?

15%? There MUST be voter fraud for them to outperfrom their share of the population by 25%.

"Turnout was low, below 2008 and 2004."

"I had already read the link Camlost posted. It makes a good point that higher minority percentages don't necessarily mean higher minority turnout. Minorities could be a higher percentage because white turnout was lower. But I'm not sure how to square this with the fact that votes for Obama were down 10 million from 08 whereas votes for Romney were pretty flat from what McCain got. So if there was lower white turnout it would seem that it hurt Obama more than Romney. Anyone got any thoughts on this?"


You are basing this conclusion on incomplete vote totals. When all the votes are counted, there will be about 129 million total votes cast as compared to 131 million in 2008. Turnout will have been slightly lower than in 2008, but higher than any other presidential election since 1968.

@destructure

Those mean dems making Bush hide out in the Caymans for the elections.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/caribbean/2012/11/01/media-blackout-bush-speaks-cayman-islands/eMrOYlFDizCz0Gewr0hn3I/story.html

Media 'blackout' as Bush speaks in Cayman Islands


Apparently the dems drove thousands of Somalis (most who can't speak English) to the polls and told them how to vote. There are 45,000 Somalis in Ohio.

Actually, the logic to this is hilariously straight forward if you think about it. Prolly the first place we should expect...


"The last place I would expect elder statesman George W. Bush to show his face would be the Cayman Islands, home to some of the world’s most notorious and nefarious financial intrigue. After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. investigators focused on secret Cayman Islands accounts thought to be used by al-Qaeda operatives to funnel money to the hijackers. Right around that time, Enron was collapsing as various shell companies its top executives established in the Cayman Islands proved not to be the promising new business ventures that Enron investors were led to believe they were.

At the time, the founder and head of Enron was Kenneth Lay, a good friend of President Bush. They were so tight, Bush liked to call him “Kenny.”

When you want to hide what you’re doing, the Cayman Islands is the place to go..."

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/bushs-top-secret-cayman-islands-speech-youre-welcome-america.html/

@BlueWillow

The son is a disappointment?

http://christwire.org/2012/10/tagg-romney-buys-hart-intercivic-voting-machine-company-for-ohio-solamere-capital/

Tagg Romney Buys HART Intercivic, Voting Machine Company For Ohio Solamere Capital

The idea that whites always go for Republicans just isn't supported by the data. I keep wondering about New England. It is as white as Kansas, say, but the numbers are so lop-sidedly Democratic as California. All those states, in my observation on election night, were basically 60-40. Even New Hampshire, which used to be Republican, was strongly Democratic this time around (can't remember the exact number).

Would love to hear an explanation of that. I live in NYC, which is equally lop-sided, but we have some obvious reasons (blacks, Hispanics, liberal Jews). I don't get what is cooking in New England.

"Pat Buchanan figured out how to win white Ohio voters. Its a solved problem: economically liberal and socially conservative."

This is true. Such a platform would also be theoretically attractive to certain Hispanic constituencies. But you won't hear much discussion of this here or in similar venues, since this is the polar opposite of libertarianism.

Since the GOP machinery is funded by billionaire Randians, it will be the Democrats, rather than the Republicans, that will evolve to accomodate an econ-lib/social-con platform in response to a growing Hispanic population.

"Clinton may have passed the laws but bush" -- anonymous aka james edwards

So you're blaming Bush for something you admit he didn't do? No wonder you didn't sign your name to that comment.
*
"Phil Gramm: Glass-Steagall Repeal Didn't Have 'Anything To Do With The Financial Crisis' " -- james edwards

Yes, I suppose Phil Gramm would deny that the bill he sponsored caused the banking crisis. And, of course, the HuffPo would have motive to deny it, too, since they wouldn't want to admit the foundation for the financial crisis predates Bush.
*
"Those mean dems making Bush hide out in the Caymans for the elections." -- james edwards

Reminding voters of Bush during the elections would have helped the Dems.

**
"Yet both states have voted Republican in past elections..." -- HS

The article Camlost linked suggests a reason they didn't this time.

**
"You are basing this conclusion on incomplete vote totals." -- KLO

It was a speculation not a conclusion. I will, however, conclude that they won't find 10 million more votes since the election has been over for 2 days.

Abolishing the electoral college would help the Republicans but they have been too stupid to figure that out. Republicans will do well if they can run a populist but conservative economic program wedded to a mildly socially conservative program. This is the type of message that resonates in every county in the country. They wouldn't have to write off CA, NY, MA, MI, PA, NJ....

Again, they are too stupid to figure this out. Why listen to common sense when you have raving geniuses like Karl Rove.

@Lou:

****"Pat Buchanan figured out how to win white Ohio voters. Its a solved problem: economically liberal and socially conservative."

This is true. Such a platform would also be theoretically attractive to certain Hispanic constituencies. But you won't hear much discussion of this here or in similar venues, since this is the polar opposite of libertarianism.****

Agreed completely - that is my political position, and I'm disappointed that it has such little national political support in America. Any ideas about how to promote the idea?

I mean, the election proves that something's gotta give. Small government, white America was great, but it's done. It's done. Either the GOP pursues the Hispanic vote, *or* becomes more SoCon/EcLib, or becomes Democrat-lite, or... well, *some*thing is going to change. Here's hoping that as you say, reverse libetarianism arises organically as an intra-party split among the Dems.

One of the reasons for the low turnout?

"The Unmitigated Disaster Known As Project ORCA
What is Project Orca? Well, this is what they told us:
Project ORCA is a massive undertaking – the Republican Party’s newest, unprecedented and most technologically advanced plan to win the 2012 presidential election.
Pretty much everything in that sentence is false. The "massive undertaking" is true, however. It would take a lot of planning, training and coordination to be done successfully (oh, we'll get to that in a second). This wasn't really the GOP's effort, it was Team Romney's. And perhaps "unprecedented" would fit if we're discussing failure.
The entire purpose of this project was to digitize the decades-old practice of strike lists. The old way was to sit with your paper and mark off people that have voted and every hour or so, someone from the campaign would come get your list and take it back to local headquarters. Then, they'd begin contacting people that hadn't voted yet and encourage them to head to the polls. It's worked for years.


From the very start there were warning signs. After signing up, you were invited to take part in nightly conference calls. The calls were more of the slick marketing speech type than helpful training sessions. There was a lot of "rah-rahs" and lofty talk about how this would change the ballgame.

Working primarily as a web developer, I had some serious questions. Things like "Has this been stress tested?", "Is there redundancy in place?" and "What steps have been taken to combat a coordinated DDOS attack or the like?", among others. These types of questions were brushed aside (truth be told, they never took one of my questions). They assured us that the system had been relentlessly tested and would be a tremendous success....

o, the end result was that 30,000+ of the most active and fired-up volunteers were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity's sake.

The bitter irony of this entire endeavor was that a supposedly small government candidate gutted the local structure of GOTV efforts in favor of a centralized, faceless organization in a far off place (in this case, their Boston headquarters). Wrap your head around that."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php

"It was a speculation not a conclusion. I will, however, conclude that they won't find 10 million more votes since the election has been over for 2 days."

A projection of final vote counts using percent of precincts reporting and current vote totals shows that in five states, WA, CA, NY, OH and AZ, there are an estimated 8.2 million votes not yet counted. Based on this, is it so hard to believe that there are 9 or 10 million votes not yet counted? Could be wrong, but I would not count on it.

I'm not in Ohio but my state was one of the ones where voter ID was not required. I think this is the problem. A gal in my office here was bragging to some other workers here that she never updated her voter registration info to the address she moved to 3 years ago. She voted at the precinct under her old address and under her maiden name. She got married around the same time she moved. I mean, if she could do this, I wonder how many others voted in this way. I don't know if OH was a voter id state...my guess would be "no" since Obama "won" this state. I think it should be looked into but I know it won't do any good now since the election is over...

The demographics of the voters sampled are not necessarily going to match the demographics of the state on the whole.

I sincerely hope all this "voter suppression" stuff is written facetiously.

The comments to this entry are closed.