2012 Election Result Analysis

[Subby]

This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

You should know better than that. Our personal feelings and hang ups and experiences don't really mean shit. Come with some hard data on this. I haven't seen anything to suggest this was a meaningful issue in any way.

[Toddzilla]

It was cool seeing all the attention on Chesterfield County, VA. That's where I grew up, it's a moderately affluent suburb of Richmond south of the river.

Also, the third party candidates took it in the shorts this election. I would have expected the lot of them to have at least crossed 2% of the popular vote nationally, but they didn't get squadoosh.

Finally, the Barack Obama victory, paired with his victory in 2008, were the largest 2 victories by a Democratic candidate since before the Civil War - save FDR. His margin of victory both in the electoral college and the popular vote were higher than both GW Bush and Bill Clinton. If any president had a "mandate" or won "political capital", it's Barack Obama.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Subby

You should know better than that. Our personal feelings and hang ups and experiences don't really mean shit. Come with some hard data on this. I haven't seen anything to suggest this was a meaningful issue in any way.

Agreed.

There isn't one single shred of evidence that indicates Romney's religion had anything to do with how anyone voted.

Latinos didn't break for Obama because Romney is Mormon, they broke because Romney and the GOP has systematically shit on the Latino vote for 4 years.

[Easy Mac]

I doubt Mormonism had little to do with his losing. Most people who that bothered were hardcore evangelicals/Christians. They were voting for Romney over the black Muslim regardless.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery.

Demagoguery? From the left? Were you watching any of the campaign?

That's kind of funny.

[Arles]

I think it played a lot with independents. Polls in Florida, Ohio and Colorado had independents breaking hard for Romney on the weekend/Monday. Then, on Tuesday, the independents in those states flipped and moved more towards Obama. This is because Obama was more likeable and people felt more comfortable with him as person. Whether that's because of Romney's dimeanor, hangups on his religion or just a last second fear of voting for him - we don't know. But, something made independents do what has rarely been seen on election day in the history of voting - swing towards the incumbent more than the polls showed a day or two earlier.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor. Most pundits felt that independents and undecideds were going to break for Romney. In key states like Florida, Ohio and Colorado, it didn't go that way. This isn't very PC, but I feel like a lot of people just couldn't get over Romney being mormon when it came down to casting their vote.

IMO, if the republicans want to regain power in 2016, all they need to do is be a little smarter about the social issues and the religious background of who they nominate. Putting up senate candidates who say that they are against abortion even in cases of rape and Mormon presidential candidates are going to be easy fodder for democrat demagoguery. It's OK if their candidate is pro-life, but he has to be smart about explaining that. It's OK if he is religious, just not to the level that can be easily marginalized by the dems.

It seems to me that a lot of the hispanic/black vote was related to Obama being a minority race and the youth vote on how much people liked him. Neither Clinton, Gore or Kerry had the turnout or margins in those groups that Obama did. If I were a republican strategist, I would focus on getting more women and maybe have a better message for latinos - but I would think that the next democratic nominee isn't going to get the turnout that Obama did with minorities and young people. And, just nominating someone who isn't mormon or has crazy views on abortion (like some of their senate candidates) should be enough to take back enough women to win.

Obama, Clinton, W and Reagan were simply more likeable than their opponents (Dole, Kerry, McCain, Gore, Romney). W got re-elected in a bad military/economy time - as did Obama. Bush beat out Gore in one of the best economic elections in 20 years because people liked him more. At the end of the day, this country is going to be 50/50 from here on out on parties. Barring a transcendent candidate (ie, first black president Obama) or a serious recession/depression, not much is going to change that. Republicans will continue to have massive majorities in white men while democrats do well with women and minorities. I think each side can be smart about poaching 3-4% from each group - but at the end of the day the candidates likeability will be much more relevant than how each side campaigns (or if they change stances on issues).

Arles,

There's a lot of incorrect stuff in your assumptions here.

1. There's zero proof that his Mormonism was a factor. Evangelicals voted in droves and overwhelmingly for Romney in similar percentages that they did for Bush. When the evangelicals had to choose between a Mormon and a "dirty Muslim" (and polls show 25% of evangelicals believe that he is), the choice was pretty clear. This is especially true in the deep south, where less than 25% of evangelicals believe Obama is a Christian at all and the majority in some states believe that he is a Muslim.

2. Since Mormonism wasn't a factor, your conclusions in your second paragraph are faulty. Obama carried only 39% of the white vote, didn't capture a huge number of the traditional white swing voters and still won. That's not something easily solved by the Republicans because the traditional victory demographics broke their way and they still lost. The demographic has shifted considerably and their path to victory has become very, very slim without changing their appeal. And that won't be easy...

3. We've already addressed why it will be difficult for Republicans to appeal to Hispanic voters. It's not that simple. Women voters will more easily come back into the fold, but there's zero chance the Republican party will nominate someone who is Pro Choice. That's going to be enough for the Democrats to continue to capture a larger percentage of the female vote.

4. If "likeability" is THE factor, then Bush Sr. wouldn't have won. Nor did W preside over a bad economy - when he was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 5.5% and we were having the strongest GDP growth in W's 8 years. Not to mention the war was still a net positive at that point for W.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but your assumptions are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. I'd suggest you do some more research into the voting breakdowns, trends and causes for the vote. Simply put, this election was gift-wrapped for the Republicans from an economic standpoint. NO President had been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7% since FDR in 1936 (for obvious reasons this was seen as a vast improvement), yet Obama pulled that off last night. When the economy is everyone's #1 concern and it's growing tepidly at best, unemployment is at 8%, underemployment is closer to 15%, people are still upside down on their mortgages, the Republicans nominated their most moderate candidate and they STILL lose...well, that's a pretty damn big cause for concern for the Republican party.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I doubt Mormonism had little to do with his losing. Most people who that bothered were hardcore evangelicals/Christians. They were voting for Romney over the black Muslim regardless.

A lot of non-religious people were bothered by it as well. I'm not sure it was a major issue, but in an election where 1% mattered in 3-4 states, it played a part.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think people are really underestimating the "Mormon" factor.

Right dude, America decided for the black guy over the LDS candidate that many believe was/is a Muslim. Riight.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

Dude still won 49 states and presided over a pretty happy time in this country. His popularity has decreased over time, but c'mon, we're comparing those years to the Bush years here.

I never get the perception of why the 80s were such a fun time jambaroo. Granted, I was a kid, but what I remember is that shit was still really hard to get done and your options - entertainment, food, jobs, education, were limited everywhere. People were a hell of a lot more intolerant and racist. Who thinks looking for a job in the Sunday paper and typing out resumes was a good time?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's not quite as uniform as the "black vote", but you're still talking about a 75% vote for Obama from Hispanics - one of the fastest growing voting segments and one that was over 10% of the overall vote for the first time this election. No, people aren't overestimating it.

I started to type a lot, went looking for Hispanic population by state to back up one of my points, and found a 538 article that does a better job than I was doing - Hispanic Voters Less Plentiful in Swing States - NYTimes.com

Basically, people say "fastest growing" like Hispanics will go from 10% to 20% in one election, but in reality they'll maybe get up to 11% of the vote in 2016 and are decades away from hitting 20% of the electorate. And more importantly, the vast majority are in states that don't matter. (Say had Romney a 60-40 advantage amongst Hispanics as a whole which is probably the upper edge of even the more delusional GOP strategists going forward - while that 3% bump nationally would have easily given him the popular vote total it wouldn't have won him this election. It would give Romney Florida, and possibly made the difference in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and even Virginia with how close it was, but changed nothing in any of the Upper Midwestern states that were close, or done anything to put the outcome in doubt in California/Texas/New York/New Jersey/Illinois where the majority of Hispanic voters are.) Finally, the most prominent swing state with lots of Hispanics (Florida) is the one where a plurality are Cuban-Americans a.k.a. the most conservative of Hispanic voters, and I really don't think there's some easy way to pander to them and Mexican-Americans at the same time.

I think the biggest and best opportunity for GOP growth is amongst fiscally conservative urban-dwellers and middle-class college educated voters entering/leaving their 30's, but the social conservative wing dominating the talking points is too alienating to get them to actually switch over.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Arles,

There's a lot of incorrect stuff in your assumptions here.

1. There's zero proof that his Mormonism was a factor. Evangelicals voted in droves and overwhelmingly for Romney in similar percentages that they did for Bush. When the evangelicals had to choose between a Mormon and a "dirty Muslim" (and polls show 25% of evangelicals believe that he is), the choice was pretty clear. This is especially true in the deep south, where less than 25% of evangelicals believe Obama is a Christian at all and the majority in some states believe that he is a Muslim.

I'm not talking about Evangelicals. They would vote for anyone with an R by their name. I'm talking about independents who aren't very religious. This is a growing section of the electorate and a group that Romney had a big problem with (but W didn't).

2. Since Mormonism wasn't a factor, your conclusions in your second paragraph are faulty.

How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

Obama carried only 39% of the white vote, didn't capture a huge number of the traditional white swing voters and still won. That's not something easily solved by the Republicans because the traditional victory demographics broke their way and they still lost. The demographic has shifted considerably and their path to victory has become very, very slim without changing their appeal. And that won't be easy...

If the minority/youth turnout goes down a tick and the women vote goes slightly up a tick, republicans win. The selection of the candidate (and not facing as transcendent a candidate as Obama) could easily change both in 2016.

3. We've already addressed why it will be difficult for Republicans to appeal to Hispanic voters. It's not that simple. Women voters will more easily come back into the fold, but there's zero chance the Republican party will nominate someone who is Pro Choice. That's going to be enough for the Democrats to continue to capture a larger percentage of the female vote.

Women broke hard for Bush and he was pro-life. It's not so much the stance on abortion as it is not saying something stupid (ie, "I am against abortion even in cases of rape") and being more likeable.

4. If "likeability" is THE factor, then Bush Sr. wouldn't have won. Nor did W preside over a bad economy - when he was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 5.5% and we were having the strongest GDP growth in W's 8 years. Not to mention the war was still a net positive at that point for W.

I mean personal likeability. Bush Sr won off of Reagan's coat tails. W was much more likeable than Gore and won despite the good economy under Clinton/Gore. Obama (next to maybe Reagan) might be the most likeable candidate in 30 years. That's how he overcame the issues with the economy.

The well-informed will vote R and D regardless of the candidate. Worst case, like for Kerry in 2004 or McCain in 2008, they just won't vote if they don't like their guy. But, well-informed people on the issues are rarely going to change their mind a month before the election and switch from D to R or vice versa. The "independents" or election procrastinators often don't pay as much attention as the die hards. So, at the end of the day, they will often end up voting for the guy (or girl) they trust/like the most and feel relates the best to them. W related very well to many people and Obama was extremely likeable and trustworthy in the eyes of many.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Right dude, America decided for the black guy over the LDS candidate that many believe was/is a Muslim. Riight.

The folks in the middle aren't the ones calling Obama a Muslim.

SI

[molson]

The Mormon thing is tough to measure, like the race thing. Isn't there still a sentiment that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black? Do we have data on that? How many people are predisposed to vote Democrat but then won't if it's a black nominee? I'm sure there's some, maybe a fair amount, but I don't know that the extent of that can be proven with data. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

Surely Obama lost SOME votes because of his race and Romney lost at least SOME votes because of his religion. Obviously those prejudices are out there, I'm sure data CAN back that up, it's just a matter of how much they influence votes, which I'm sure is way harder to measure.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I started to type a lot, went looking for Hispanic population by state to back up one of my points, and found a 538 article that does a better job than I was doing - Hispanic Voters Less Plentiful in Swing States - NYTimes.com

Basically, people say "fastest growing" like Hispanics will go from 10% to 20% in one election, but in reality they'll maybe get up to 11% of the vote in 2016 and are decades away from hitting 20% of the electorate. And more importantly, the vast majority are in states that don't matter. (Say had Romney a 60-40 advantage amongst Hispanics as a whole which is probably the upper edge of even the more delusional GOP strategists going forward - while that 3% bump nationally would have easily given him the popular vote total it wouldn't have won him this election. It would give Romney Florida, and possibly made the difference in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and even Virginia with how close it was, but changed nothing in any of the Upper Midwestern states that were close, or done anything to put the outcome in doubt in California/Texas/New York/New Jersey/Illinois where the majority of Hispanic voters are.) Finally, the most prominent swing state with lots of Hispanics (Florida) is the one where a plurality are Cuban-Americans a.k.a. the most conservative of Hispanic voters, and I really don't think there's some easy way to pander to them and Mexican-Americans at the same time.

I think the biggest and best opportunity for GOP growth is amongst fiscally conservative urban-dwellers and middle-class college educated voters entering/leaving their 30's, but the social conservative wing dominating the talking points is too alienating to get them to actually switch over.

This is exactly right. A lot of people in today's society can buy the republicans stance on economic and military issues, but the hard-line on abortion is what turns them off. Finding a way to have a softer stance on abortion (even just saying they are pro-life except in cases of rape,incest, mother's health) would go a long way - esp with women.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

What does the late swing have to do with anything?

Did they just find out he was a Mormon as they were entering the polling place?

Maybe I missed all the banners out front that said he was Mormon.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

The Mormon thing is tough to measure, like the race thing. Isn't there still a sentiment that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black? Do we have data on that? How many people are predisposed to vote Democrat but then won't if it's a black nominee? I'm sure there's some, maybe a fair amount, but I don't know that the extent of that can be proven with data. But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.

Surely Obama lost SOME votes because of his race and Romney lost at least SOME votes because of his religion. Obviously those prejudices are out there, I'm sure data CAN back that up, it's just a matter of how much they influence votes, which I'm sure is way harder to measure.

I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

And there's the flip side of it too - people who only voted for Obama because he was black (probably mostly people who wouldn't have voted at all otherwise), and people who only voted for Romney because he's a mormon. (probably mostly related to turnout also). Every election is going to have factors like that. I have no idea if they can swing national elections or not. And I'm not sure which augment or factor has the burden of proof if there's no data either way.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not talking about Evangelicals. They would vote for anyone with an R by their name. I'm talking about independents who aren't very religious. This is a growing section of the electorate and a group that Romney had a big problem with (but W didn't).

Hold on. Your premise is that "independents who aren't very religious" had a big problem with Romney's religion?

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Originally Posted by Arles

How can you say it didn't play a factor. People hope it didn't, but the massive late swing in independents (esp non-religious) to Obama means it *could* have played a factor in the swing states.

Look at the demographics. There wasn't any massive late swing in independents.

Originally Posted by Arles

If the minority/youth turnout goes down a tick and the women vote goes slightly up a tick, republicans win. The selection of the candidate (and not facing as transcendent a candidate as Obama) could easily change both in 2016.

Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That Obama could still win despite losing the white vote points to shifting USA demographics, not "likeability".

Originally Posted by Arles

Women broke hard for Bush and he was pro-life. It's not so much the stance on abortion as it is not saying something stupid (ie, "I am against abortion even in cases of rape") and being more likeable.

Again, your facts are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. Women did no such thing for bush. Women voted 51-44% for Kerry and 50-42% for Gore.

Originally Posted by Arles

I mean personal likeability. Bush Sr won off of Reagan's coat tails. W was much more likeable than Gore and won despite the good economy under Clinton/Gore. Obama (next to maybe Reagan) might be the most likeable candidate in 30 years. That's how he overcame the issues with the economy.

Likeability helps, but that's an intrinsic factor. Not everyone finds Obama likeable. But your theory goes out the window very quickly. Was it likeability that drove 3/4ths of Hispanics to vote for Obama? Was it likeability that gave Obama 55% of the women vote? If that's the case, then why didn't he capture more of the male vote?

Originally Posted by Arles

The well-informed will vote R and D regardless of the candidate.

No, those are called "sheep". If you're voting R or D regardless of the candidate, then you're very likely not well-informed.

Originally Posted by Arles

Worst case, like for Kerry in 2004 or McCain in 2008, they just won't vote if they don't like their guy. But, well-informed people on the issues are rarely going to change their mind a month before the election and switch from D to R or vice versa. The "independents" or election procrastinators often don't pay as much attention as the die hards. So, at the end of the day, they will often end up voting for the guy (or girl) they trust/like the most and feel relates the best to them. W related very well to many people and Obama was extremely likeable and trustworthy in the eyes of many.

You can keep trying to say it's all about likeability, but the numbers don't bear that out in this election. While Bush may have won in 2000 because more people thought he'd be a good guy to sit down and have a beer with than Gore, that doesn't necessarily hold water when there are more pressing issues in a campaign - like a war and terrorism (2004), a recession (1992) or the economic doldrums (2012).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think that the combination of the youth/minority appeal of Obama with a very small % having reservations about Romney's religion is why Obama won. Now whether it was 90% Obama appeal and 10% Romney trepidation or 95-5 or even 85-15, no one will know. But, it did play a role and no one seems willing to say that.

I'll put it this way, if a minority candidate faced W in 2004 and the massive swing in independents towards the incumbent W occurred like it did to Obama in 2012 - you would have to look at the fact that race may have played a role (albeit a small one). That's what I am saying here in regards to Romney and his religion. I'm not saying it's right, but I think you have to at least consider it when looking at the possible reasons for the independent shift on the last day.

Wouldn't this possibly be a case of fitting the "facts" to a narrative rather than the other way around? In 2008, Obama won convincingly. Why? As much, if not more, because the economy was in the toilet as who he was. That race was extremely close until the bottom fell out of the economy in September.

Bush was very beatable in 2004 but the Democrats went with John Kerry, a very unlikeable candidate. So, if they had gone with a more likeable candidate, they would have won, minority or otherwise. And if a minority candidate had lost, it would have been because of unlikability (probably not a word) not because of minority status.

But those are two contradictory examples: maybe likability counts. Or maybe the economy and party identification are just such overwhelming factors that they sets 95% of the battlefield and only a couple of percentage points are in play, either way.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Voting patterns are set in our youth. Splitting the 40-49 and losing, by wide margins, everyone under 40 is really bad. Counting on turnout of their current voters is a doomed strategy. They have to find ways to appeal to young and ethnic voters.

I disagree with this - I wouldn't know where to find accurate numbers on this, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party has been doing better with older voters than younger ones since they completed the shift over to being the conservative party during the 1960's, if not before, yet they've continued being a viable party because people start voting more conservatively as they grow older. It's not about appealing to young voters, it's about appealing to yesterday's young voters as they age.

[Subby]

On Monday, Nov 5th, Peggy Noonan made Nate Silver's case for him. Thank you Peggy. Because it's all about the yard signs.:

We begin with the three words everyone writing about the election must say: Nobody knows anything. Everyone’s guessing. I spent Sunday morning in Washington with journalists and political hands, one of whom said she feels it’s Obama, the rest of whom said they don’t know. I think it’s Romney. I think he’s stealing in “like a thief with good tools,” in Walker Percy’s old words. While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. He’s quietly rising, and he’s been rising for a while.

Obama and the storm, it was like a wave that lifted him and then moved on, leaving him where he’d been. Parts of Jersey and New York are a cold Katrina. The exact dimensions of the disaster will become clearer when the election is over. One word: infrastructure. Officials knew the storm was coming and everyone knew it would be bad, but the people of the tristate area were not aware, until now, just how vulnerable to deep damage their physical system was. The people in charge of that system are the politicians. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to have the Marathon, to show New York’s spirit. In Staten Island last week they were bitterly calling it “the race through the ruins.” There is a disconnect.

But to the election. Who knows what to make of the weighting of the polls and the assumptions as to who will vote? Who knows the depth and breadth of each party’s turnout efforts? Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said, in a conversation the night before the last presidential debate, that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don’t know about.

I think they are and I think it’s this: a Romney win.

Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign’s surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd “I worked the rope line, people wouldn’t let go of my hand.” It startled him. A former political figure who’s been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what’s happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they’ll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them.

There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same.

Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.

And there is Obama, out there seeming tired and wan, showing up through sheer self discipline. A few weeks ago I saw the president and the governor at the Al Smith dinner, and both were beautiful specimens in their white ties and tails, and both worked the dais. But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger—flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced. He looked like a man who’d just seen some bad internal polling. Romney? Expansive, hilarious, self-spoofing, with a few jokes of finely calibrated meanness that were just perfect for the crowd. He looked like a president. He looked like someone who’d just seen good internals.

Of all people, Obama would know if he is in trouble. When it comes to national presidential races, he is a finely tuned political instrument: He read the field perfectly in 2008. He would know if he’s losing now, and it would explain his joylessness on the stump. He is out there doing what he has to to fight the fight. But he’s still trying to fire up the base when he ought to be wooing the center and speaking their calm centrist talk. His crowds haven’t been big. His people have struggled to fill various venues. This must hurt the president after the trememdous, stupendous crowds of ’08. “Voting’s the best revenge”—revenge against who, and for what? This is not a man who feels himself on the verge of a grand victory. His campaign doesn’t seem president-sized. It is small and sad and lost, driven by formidable will and zero joy.

I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled.

Romney ends most rallies with his story of the Colorado scout troop that in 1986 had an American flag put in the space shuttle Challenger, saw the Challenger blow up as they watched on TV, and then found, through the persistence of their scoutmaster, that the flag had survived the explosion. It was returned to them by NASA officials. When Romney, afterward, was shown the flag, he touched it, and an electric jolt went up his arm. It’s a nice story. He doesn’t make its meaning fully clear. But maybe he means it as a metaphor for America: It can go through a terrible time, a catastrophe, as it has economically the past five years, and still emerge whole, intact, enduring.

Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That Obama could still win despite losing the white vote points to shifting USA demographics, not "likeability".

I'd wager he was saying that Republicans need to increase their % of the female vote, not the total # of women who vote. Not having multiple Senate candidates talk about rape and abortions is probably a good start there.

(And I don't see how saying Obama's skin tone cost him some substantial portion of the white vote is any different than Arles saying Romney's religion cost him some portion of the independents. Neither is provable.)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Hold on. Your premise is that "independents who aren't very religious" had a big problem with Romney's religion?

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

You think it's crazy that someone who isn't very religious could have an issue with a religious president? People who don't consider themselves religious are usually the group who have the biggest issue with very religious candidates. I'm assuming you just read this wrong.

Look at the demographics. There wasn't any massive late swing in independents.

There was in Ohio, Florida and Colorado based on the polls run on Sunday/Monday. Romney was either ahead or tie in regards to independents in the polls going to election day. He lost independents in each state on election day.

Incorrect. Women voted 54-55% for Obama. Increasing the women vote does not help the Republicans.

You really are having an issue with reading today. I said increasing the rate of women voting for republicans - not simply increasing the number of women voting. That's the one issue republicans need to look at from a policy perspective (or atleast a framing issue).

Decreasing the minority vote would help the Republicans. In many ways you can thank the Voter ID initiatives for the minority turnout. Nothing drives people to the polls like trying to pass legislation making it harder for them to vote. Obama's skin tone most definitely had a factor, but it was both a positive and a negative. It helped motivate some minorities to vote, but it most definitely has cost him some substantial portion of the white vote. Kerry - who I'll remind you LOST - captured 41% of white voters. Gore - who LOST - got 42%. Obama - who WON - got 39%. That points to shifting demographics, not "likeability".

So, you think that in the four years from Kerry to Obama, the demographics increased enough to make up the difference? There must have been a ton of 14-year old minorities chomping the at the bit to vote in 2008 then

Obama got record turnout by minorities and young people because of his appeal. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but it comes back to likeability. If the dems nominate Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some other "more establishment" candidate in 2016, there's a very good chance that the above turnout doesn't happen.

Again, your facts are wrong and therefore your conclusions are wrong. Women did no such thing for bush. Women voted 51-44% for Kerry and 50-42% for Gore.

Women voted 55% for Obama and 50% for Gore/Kerry against W. They broke much harder for Bush than for any opponent of Obama. It wasn't a majority, but that isn't needed for a republican to win. If the republican in 2016 holds the democrat to a 50% rate on women, they win.

Likeability helps, but that's an intrinsic factor. Not everyone finds Obama likeable. But your theory goes out the window very quickly. Was it likeability that drove 3/4ths of Hispanics to vote for Obama?

I think many factors that probably won't be there in 2016 led to this. Obama's likeability being a major one. There was some backlash to republicans because of the immigration issue, but that was an issue in 2004 and 44% went for W.

Was it likeability that gave Obama 55% of the women vote? If that's the case, then why didn't he capture more of the male vote?

Again, you can't swing the die hards. African Americans, union members and single women are going dem no matter what. Older white men are going republican in large numbers no matter what. When you get to suburban wives, non-religious white men and non-partisans - that's when likeability comes into play. And those are the groups that went for W in 2004 and Obama in 2008/12.

No, those are called "sheep". If you're voting R or D regardless of the candidate, then you're very likely not well-informed.

Welcome to a majority of the voting public.

You can keep trying to say it's all about likeability, but the numbers don't bear that out in this election. While Bush may have won in 2000 because more people thought he'd be a good guy to sit down and have a beer with than Gore, that doesn't necessarily hold water when there are more pressing issues in a campaign - like a war and terrorism (2004), a recession (1992) or the economic doldrums (2012).

You're making my point. The war was going terrible in 2004 and people still elected W in 2004 because they like him more than Kerry. The economy is in the crapper this year and people still re-elected Obama because they liked him more than Romney. Likeability is even more important than major issues. Now, there are situations where issues and likeability coincide (ie, 1992 for Clinton and 2008 for Obama) - but I can't ever remember where a less likeable candidate won, regardless of the issues.

[Butter]

Got news for you, Arles. Minority turnout could go down a tick, but guess what? The raw numbers would remain the same, if not INCREASE, not decrease. Why? Because minorities are by far the fastest growing segment of the electorate. If you are going to continue to bank on winning middle-aged and old white voters, then you will be doomed to be a regional Southern and Plains party whose only hope to win nationally is to continue trying to institutionalize some of these archaic anti-GOTV statutes.

So, good luck with all that.

[BishopMVP]

I stated before that I really do think the pollsters who saw each side winning (which include some intellectually honest people on what was proven to be the wrong side, along with your wingnuts like unbiased guy) thought their numbers were right. Amongst the ones who were wrong but reasonable about it (Michael Barone probably the most prominent Barone: I was wrong–where it counted | WashingtonExaminer.com ), it seems their reasoning is twofold. First, they didn't expect the Obama ground game to get out the vote as well as they did in urban areas (or for his supporters to come out in numbers close to 2008), and secondly they expected independents to break more towards Romney, as they historically break towards the challenger, especially when you have a bad economy.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I disagree with this - I wouldn't know where to find accurate numbers on this, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party has been doing better with older voters than younger ones since they completed the shift over to being the conservative party during the 1960's, if not before, yet they've continued being a viable party because people start voting more conservatively as they grow older. It's not about appealing to young voters, it's about appealing to yesterday's young voters as they age.

Which gets back to my point from earlier. Where is this appeal going to come from? It's a lot harder to shift a segment of the population to the Republican side when there simply isn't a likeable Republican President to draw fond memories from. Sure, people become more conservative as they age, but is that enough to sufficiently close the gap that the Republicans have handicapped themselves with in the current climate?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Got news for you, Arles. Minority turnout could go down a tick, but guess what? The raw numbers would remain the same, if not INCREASE, not decrease. Why? Because minorities are by far the fastest growing segment of the electorate. If you are going to continue to bank on winning middle-aged and old white voters, then you will be doomed to be a regional Southern and Plains party whose only hope to win nationally is to continue trying to institutionalize some of these archaic anti-GOTV statutes.

So, good luck with all that.

First, I voted for Obama - so I'm not upset that he won. I'm simply looking at all of this from an election postmortem perspective. If the republicans want to win in 2016, they should find a candidate that has a slightly better appeal to women (ie, more likeable) and not nominate extremely vocal pro-life candidates for senate in swing states. Combine that with the inevitable drop in youth/minority turnout when Obama is not the candidate, and they have a very good chance to win regardless of the issues.

Both the republicans (2004 with W) and democrats (2012 with Obama) are both making a mistake when they think that by winning - suddenly the electorate is now more for them moving forward. Barring a massive event or terrible situation, candidate likeability is what shifts elections. If a very likeable republican is nominated in 2016 and the democratic candidate isn't as likeable, the republicans will win regardless of all these demographic shifts. Stance on issues is like paint on the car. It's nice, but whether the car wins the race is because of its engine - and that's the candidate's likeability.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is exactly right. A lot of people in today's society can buy the republicans stance on economic and military issues, but the hard-line on abortion is what turns them off. Finding a way to have a softer stance on abortion (even just saying they are pro-life except in cases of rape,incest, mother's health) would go a long way - esp with women.

I'm not sure that "Rape, Incest & the Life of the Mother" is enough of a tagline to get Republicans to the % of the female vote they need. Because it will doubtless still be accompanied by all manner of crazy state restrictions and trans-vaginal ultrasounds and crazy shit.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd wager he was saying that Republicans need to increase their % of the female vote, not the total # of women who vote. Not having multiple Senate candidates talk about rape and abortions is probably a good start there.

Not having an official platform that includes those batshit crazy positions would be an even better idea.

[Easy Mac]

You can't make it through the Republican primary if you're not 100% anti-abortion anymore.

[Arles]

Agreed, the major issue the republicans need to look at before 2016 is abortion. If the party found a way to soften its stance (even slightly) and not change anything else - their appeal with women will increase enough to probably win (provided they have a decent candidate). But, that's no likely to happen which means candidate selection will be even more important moving ahead.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

You can't make it through the Republican primary if you're not 100% anti-abortion anymore.

Romney was somewhat less than 100%, or at least, the other Republican challengers attacked him on that a lot.

Most people agree that the Republicans need to nominate more moderate candidates, but wasn't Romney, relatively speaking, at least somewhat of a step in that direction? Hopefully they don't see that approach as the reason they lost though, which, they might.

[miked]

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lungs

Which gets back to my point from earlier. Where is this appeal going to come from? It's a lot harder to shift a segment of the population to the Republican side when there simply isn't a likeable Republican President to draw fond memories from. Sure, people become more conservative as they age, but is that enough to sufficiently close the gap that the Republicans have handicapped themselves with in the current climate?

I don't buy it - when was the likable Democratic President before Clinton came along in 1992?

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

In retrospect, maybe he should have just appealed to the moderates and dared the Republicans to nominate Santorum.

[KWhit]

I think this has a lot to do with the big night the Dems had:

Hope and Change - Part 2 - NYTimes.com

In October 2010, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, famously told The National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” And that’s how he and his party acted.

Well, Mitch, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

No one can know for sure what complex emotional chemistry tipped this election Obama’s way, but here’s my guess: In the end, it came down to a majority of Americans believing that whatever his faults, Obama was trying his hardest to fix what ails the country and that he had to do it with a Republican Party that, in its gut, did not want to meet him halfway but wanted him to fail — so that it could swoop in and pick up the pieces. To this day, I find McConnell’s declaration appalling. Consider all the problems we have faced in this country over the last four years — from debt to adapting to globalization to unemployment to the challenges of climate change to terrorism — and then roll over that statement: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

Agreed, the major issue the republicans need to look at before 2016 is abortion. If the party found a way to soften its stance (even slightly) and not change anything else - their appeal with women will increase enough to probably win (provided they have a decent candidate). But, that's no likely to happen which means candidate selection will be even more important moving ahead.

Which is interesting because it seemed like this battle was fought in the 90s and we had reached a "happy medium" until it reared its ugly head again this cycle. More than once over the past couple of months, my wife commented "Didn't we already fight this fight?"

EDIT: She's typically outwardly apolitical. She has beliefs but isn't very vocal about them. She got bored of the coverage last night quickly but her interest piqued whenever I told her the results of the polls for Team Rape.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm not sure that "Rape, Incest & the Life of the Mother" is enough of a tagline to get Republicans to the % of the female vote they need. Because it will doubtless still be accompanied by all manner of crazy state restrictions and trans-vaginal ultrasounds and crazy shit.

Believing it, pushing legislation for it in state houses, and going on talk shows/debates and saying things like that are all different levels. I disagree strongly with all 3, but only have a problem with the latter 2, and believe moderate voters only care about the last one.

Originally Posted by KWhit

Not having an official platform that includes those batshit crazy positions would be an even better idea.

Sure, sure, sure.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miked

The problem is Romney had to spend months arguing that he wasn't a moderate. If you spend a year arguing that you are hard core, then have 8-12 weeks to move back to the middle, it doesn't leave much room.

Isn't that a fundamental structural problem for them? Yes, a more likeable candidate would help them immensely. But the candidates are chosen by the most ardent supporters early on and forced hard to the right.

SI

[Easy Mac]

The thing is, Romney didn't have to go hard right to win the Republican primary. He was always going to lose the party fight in the South, where there are the most hard-right Republicans. Outside of Florida (which isn't really the South) he lost every Southern state (before everyone else withdrew).

He made it too hard to go back to the center by going to far right when he didn't really have to.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't buy it - when was the likable Democratic President before Clinton came along in 1992?

Good question and one I can't answer with LBJ or Carter.

Put it this way, it'll still take a leftward shift by Republicans especially on social issues to cut that gap. The natural shift toward conservatives views as we get older simply won't cut it.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

You think it's crazy that someone who isn't very religious could have an issue with a religious president? People who don't consider themselves religious are usually the group who have the biggest issue with very religious candidates. I'm assuming you just read this wrong.

No, I didn't read this wrong. You said people "couldn't get over him being a Mormon" - that was your exact phrase. Romney was very quiet about his religion in this entire campaign. So where's your proof that non-religious people cared more about Romney's religion than Obama's?

Also, people who aren't religious already tend to vote heavily Democratic. So "those who couldn't get over him being a Mormon" *AND* aren't religious *AND* aren't solidly Democratic voters is already a very small part of the electorate. So it's up to you to provide that somehow this very small sliver of people went for Obama because of Romney's religion.

Good luck on that.

Originally Posted by Arles

There was in Ohio, Florida and Colorado based on the polls run on Sunday/Monday. Romney was either ahead or tie in regards to independents in the polls going to election day. He lost independents in each state on election day.

I don't know what polls you are looking at. Obama won those states by virtually the exact margins predicted when taking those polls as an aggregate during the last week of the election cycle. If they suddenly went for Obama on election day, his margin of victory would have been significantly greater. It wasn't. So if all of those people suddenly broke for Obama, who suddenly broke for Romney?

Again, you're going to need some detailed citations here, because the math doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Arles

You really are having an issue with reading today. I said increasing the rate of women voting for republicans - not simply increasing the number of women voting. That's the one issue republicans need to look at from a policy perspective (or atleast a framing issue).

Nope. Again, your quote was "women broke hard FOR Bush and he was pro-life". Yet they didn't - women didn't break for Bush. So again your starting assumption is wrong. Yes, Republicans need to do better with women (duh), but don't think for a minute that the percentages in this election were significantly different than they have been in the last decade. Obama did slightly better with women. I think we'd agree that would be in large part to the "war on women" - something that has nothing to do with your assertion of "likeability".

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you think that in the four years from Kerry to Obama, the demographics increased enough to make up the difference? There must have been a ton of 14-year old minorities chomping the at the bit to vote in 2008 then

Obama got record turnout by minorities and young people because of his appeal. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but it comes back to likeability. If the dems nominate Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or some other "more establishment" candidate in 2016, there's a very good chance that the above turnout doesn't happen.

No, Obama got record turnout for a lot of reasons, one of which was "likeability". He also had perhaps the best ground campaign run by a Democrat since LBJ and his minority status electrified a group (black churches) that typically have a harder time getting worked up about elections.

I'm not going to try to project the turnout in 2016. However, since the ground game has already been built, it could be that any candidate can ride off the coattails of Obama's hard work and get a large part of the minority vote.

Originally Posted by Arles

Women voted 55% for Obama and 50% for Gore/Kerry against W. They broke much harder for Bush than for any opponent of Obama. It wasn't a majority, but that isn't needed for a republican to win. If the republican in 2016 holds the democrat to a 50% rate on women, they win.

Obama's 10 point point swing is only marginally better than Kerry's 7 and Gore's 8. It's closer if women break at a 7-8 point margin, but that probably doesn't net them the win.

Also, nice attempt to change the playing field. You weren't talking about breaking harder for Bush than any opponent of Obama's. You said they BROKE HARD FOR BUSH. Clearly, that wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by Arles

I think many factors that probably won't be there in 2016 led to this. Obama's likeability being a major one. There was some backlash to republicans because of the immigration issue, but that was an issue in 2004 and 44% went for W.

And 44-45% went for Romney yesterday.

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, you can't swing the die hards. African Americans, union members and single women are going dem no matter what. Older white men are going republican in large numbers no matter what. When you get to suburban wives, non-religious white men and non-partisans - that's when likeability comes into play. And those are the groups that went for W in 2004 and Obama in 2008/12.

Citation needed that these groups went for Obama when Obama captured less of the white vote than Kerry or Gore. Again, the simple math doesn't work, Arles. He can't do better among these independents (mainly white) *and* capture less of the white vote unless he is getting the die-hards...which you just said you can't swing.

Originally Posted by Arles

You're making my point. The war was going terrible in 2004 and people still elected W in 2004 because they like him more than Kerry. The economy is in the crapper this year and people still re-elected Obama because they liked him more than Romney. Likeability is even more important than major issues. Now, there are situations where issues and likeability coincide (ie, 1992 for Clinton and 2008 for Obama) - but I can't ever remember where a less likeable candidate won, regardless of the issues.

Wrong. They (barely) elected Bush because people were still scared of terrorism and the economy was doing better. The top 3 issues in 2004 were moral values (22%), the economy (20%) and terrorism (19%). Likeability doesn't dictate votes on any of those issues.


Long story short Arles, you keep posting the same thing without one iota of evidence or proof. The polling numbers don't back you up. Being more "likeable" isn't going to get more votes from the fastest growing voting segment - Latinos. Also, since only 10% of the vote was from Latinos but they now represent 16.4% of the populace, there's plenty of room for Democrats to get out more of that vote to get an even larger advantage. If trends hold, Democrats could make Texas a swing state by 2020 or 2024.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Also, the third party candidates took it in the shorts this election. I would have expected the lot of them to have at least crossed 2% of the popular vote nationally, but they didn't get squadoosh.

I think folks were worried about throwing their vote away. In NC Barbara Howe, Libertarian candidate for Governor, got twice as many votes as Gary Johnson.

[GrantDawg]

Couple of thoughts:

I think we had a big argument here on what independents did, and why. From what I understand, the misunderstanding is in who are independents now. Independents used to mean mostly moderate voters who don't really feel comfortable being a part of either party, since they agree with each in somethings not other. Independent/undecided/moderates are have been used almost interchangeably for years. But that doesn't seem to fit at all. Independents now seem to be more in line with the "tea party" right, who won't identify themselves with the Republican party, but generally votes Republican. CNN was showing that with exit polling. Those who identify themselves as moderates broke hard for Obama, whereas independents went Romney.

What did this say to me? The Republican party is never going to break hard enough for the far right. I really feel at some point there will be a break there. The Tea party either is going to become its own party, or evangelicals are going to break and take the Tea Party with them. I really feel they are looking for a reason to go, because they can't take any form of compromise on a number of issues the Republicans are going to have to give on at this point (immigration, abortion, taxes. Pick one).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

I think what matters is that there was a whole generation that was lost by the Republicans because of the Bush's 8 years in office. Reagan's eight years solidified a whole bloc of votes of people that happen to fall into that 40-49 year old range this year. But when you look beyond that, starting with 30-39 it's not even close.

It isn't just GWP and GHWB. The only president the current GOP claims as legit is Reagan. Not GWP, GHWB, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower... They have no tradition upon which to build their vision. They can't say things like We'll protect the legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. All they have is Reagan.

[sterlingice]

(who, of course, would be thrown out of his own party today)

SI

[Blackadar]

Oh, and here's some more backup:

First Thoughts: Obama's demographic edge - First Read

*** And the GOP’s demographic dilemma: Obama’s demographic edge creates this dilemma for the Republican Party: It can no longer rely on white voters to win national elections anymore, especially in presidential cycles. Indeed, according to the exit poll, 89% of all votes Mitt Romney won last night came from whites (compared with 56% for Obama). So the Republicans are maximizing their share with white voters; they just aren’t getting the rest. And come 2016, the white portion of the electorate will probably drop another couple of points to 70%. Politico’s Martin puts it this way: “Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada. Republicans face a crisis: the country is growing less white and their coalition has become more white in recent years. In 2004, George W. Bush won [about 40 percent] of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.”

That ain't a likeability gap.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, Obama got record turnout for a lot of reasons, one of which was "likeability". He also had perhaps the best ground campaign run by a Democrat since LBJ and his minority status electrified a group (black churches) that typically have a harder time getting worked up about elections.

I would say that it wasn't just his minority status that caused the huge turn outs in black areas this election. There were two groups that were majorly motivated this cycle by factors outside of the presidential election. Women, who had the shot across there bow by the Rape brothers, and an attacks not only on abortion rights but contraception access. You want to talk about an unpopular stance, restricting contraception is on top. Black voters where motivated by the number of laws/groups that tried to prevent them from voting. The Black preachers weren't getting up in there pulpits preaching Obama, they were getting in there pulpits talking about how conservatives were trying to roll back voting rights. The id laws, Florida's felony laws being overly-zealous in barring voters, etc. really just pissed people off. In every interview among the black leadership, that was the rallying cry.

It is ridiculous that in this day in age we have people actively seeking to stop people from voting, and that we politicians wanting to restrict/eliminate access to contraception. These are issues that I thought were 40 years decided.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I would say that it wasn't just his minority status that caused the huge turn outs in black areas this election. There were two groups that were majorly motivated this cycle by factors outside of the presidential election. Women, who had the shot across there bow by the Rape brothers, and an attacks not only on abortion rights but contraception access. You want to talk about an unpopular stance, restricting contraception is on top. Black voters where motivated by the number of laws/groups that tried to prevent them from voting. The Black preachers weren't getting up in there pulpits preaching Obama, they were getting in there pulpits talking about how conservatives were trying to roll back voting rights. The id laws, Florida's felony laws being overly-zealous in barring voters, etc. really just pissed people off. In every interview among the black leadership, that was the rallying cry.

It is ridiculous that in this day in age we have people actively seeking to stop people from voting, and that we politicians wanting to restrict/eliminate access to contraception. These are issues that I thought were 40 years decided.

I agree with both of those - I think I've mentioned both in my posts above. The Voter ID laws were a major factor in both getting out the vote and pushing the Latino vote more towards Obama.