Posted on 11/07/2012 6:52:07 AM PST by KeyLargo
NEW YORK (WLS) - A coalition of women and nonwhites helped re-elect President Obama to a second term Tuesday night.
Obama has always performed better with women than with men, and with nonwhites than with whites. But on Tuesday night, those numbers were so much in his favor that they built Obama a powerful firewall against a dropoff in support from white men and independent voters.
Nonwhite voters turned out to vote in higher numbers than ever. They made up 21 percent of all voters. In 1996, they were just 10 percent.
That new bloc was evident in Florida, the perennial swing state that was thought to be in Mitt Romney's corner. Hispanics came out in force for Obama, in greater numbers than in 2008 when Obama beat John McCain among Hispanics in Florida 57 to 42 percent. On Tuesday, he beat Romney among Hispanics 60 to 39 percent.
And as the country tinted blue for the second presidential election in a row, it also got a little less white.
(Excerpt) Read more at wlsam.com ...
It’s kind of a two edged sword really.
Allow the taxes to go up in 2010, and Obama refers to it as an issue the Republicans bought into as much as Democrats did.
Doesn’t that eliminate your ability to say it was Democrat policy that failed?
Soros knew every economic move Obama would make ahead of time.
Well in a case like this 2010 you yell and scream and warn and all vote against it but you let Dems get it past the Senate filibuster like Grahamnesty did Kagan.
So if Dems extended some of the tax cuts at end of 2010 Rs scream ‘they raised taxes’ and vote against it but not block it.
No, you cant shake Os hand and say it was a great bipartision agreement and then later demonize it like Ryan did the debt extension. THAT WAS STUPID! no wonder they lost again.
If the taxes go up now O is already in again.
i heard that Obama got the majority of the “takers” vote./s
The voting public is increasingly dominated by Hispanics, Youth and Single Women.
Consider:
* Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1.
* Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3.
* Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7.
* Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6.
* Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote.
With the above, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win.
He did win the rest but IT WAS NOT ENOUGH.
Excellent summary. Bottom line not far off fron 47 percent
There is no way the GOP should be losing the Asian vote. Asian immigrants are very entrepreneurial and usually very conservative socially, making them a group ideally suited for the Republican party. If the GOP can’t connect with them, then they have serious issues. One of the reasons why the Canadian Conservative party has been so successful in recent years has been its ability to make inroads with the east and south asian communities, by recruiting candidates and emphasizing small government, lower taxes and support for small business.
I think they realize that they are a forgotten population and I think theybare staking their claim as. Must have group going forward
Tribalism.
Single women are an angry bunch. They are angry on white men because they couldn’t hold on to one. And voting is merely an act of vengeance.
Imagine 10 years from now, they are in bread lines and adoration of Emperor Obama is still coming from them.
These people would.
Okay, but then Republicans would have had to help to get it passed in the House.
The Dems simply point out that you could have blocked it, but you didn’t.
That’s a very good case for the bipartisan argument. Isn’t it?
Personally, I think many of the current crop of liberals would march to the gas chamber rather than admit their ideology is flawed. To admit their ideology is wrong means they are racist, sexist, or homophobic (in their mind)—which means they deserve to die.
Personally, I think many of the current crop of liberals would march to the gas chamber rather than admit their ideology is flawed. To admit their ideology is wrong means they are racist, sexist, or homophobic (in their mind)—which means they deserve to die.
That argument wouldn't sound very good. They do better with the debt limit argument “They voted for and praised it now they claim they apposed it”
I am an old woman so I can say this freely. Unless the women are older and married they vote like cats...for anything bright and shiny that benefits them. This year it was the “right” to have the public pay for their carefree and indiscriminate sex lives.
I’m all for women losing the right to vote for the good of the country as a whole. I would add to that that no one under the age of 26 should be allowed to vote. If Mommy and Daddy have to insure you to that age, you aren’t capable of adult behavior. It is a simple as that.
Lastly, anyone who pays does not pay taxes should be allowed to vote. If you really want to vote...then go to work and pay taxes. Otherwise there is a conflict of interest. Nobody else gets to vote on how much they “earn” or when they will get a “raise” in their “income.” Why should Welfare Slackers get this special privilege?
I agree with that.
I agree with your take on things.
Since the specific topic at hand here is "voting"....then yes, absolutely.
I'll counter: Who is it that says you can, or cannot vote?
Anything else you wish to discuss?
Well, no, V's wife.....I take it you're new here (unlike your husband, whom I respect as a fellow FReeper and patriot). There are exceptions to every rule, but I'm a firmly grounded realist and Constitutionalist. I'm also a veteran, so I've put it on the line for my country.
Look at the stats, deal with the facts. Women and minorities elected this Muslim Socialist not once, but twice. Women did it out of jaw-dropping ignorance and stupidity (must I recap the Democrat positions on "the war on women", or did you hear enough of it during the campaign to understand what b.s. it was?). Blacks, other minorities out of ignorance, yes....stupidity, and a "gimme gimme" attitude.
My point has strong historic underpinnings. If you weren't a property owner, you didn't vote. Period. There were good reasons for that. Last evening proved the point in spades.
Women.......God knows I love 'em, and I know MANY staunchly patriotic, Conservative women....including many I'd vote FOR in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by at least another here, a woman herself, women too often act on emotion vs. logic.
At a minimum, I'd advocate the following: If you aren't a LEGAL taxpayer, you don't vote. Period. I mean YOU, not your spouse. YOU must pay Federal income taxes in order to vote in Federal elections. If you don't pay taxes, you have zero skin in the game. I don't care your gender, color, race, creed, etc....I simply don't care. No skin in the game, you don't vote.
It has been said that democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. I happen to agree with that. Again.....last night proved it, despite our so-called status as a representative Republic (arguably, we are no longer).
Take offense if you wish, but I deal in the real world, with cold, hard facts and history. I don't and won't retreat one inch from that stance.
“two groups that the founders never intended to vote.”
This is a myth perpetrated by the communists who hate America - by definition the Founders. They are the ones who tell us how evil and cruel and discriminatory the Founders were - and thus is America evil.
There is nothing in the (real) Constitution about “women” or “blacks”, etc. If there was, there would not have been women and blacks voting in certain places in the 1790s. It’s a myth that women and blacks and other needed constitutional changes to get “rights”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.