Skip to comments.Romney actually won young white voters
Posted on 11/09/2012 1:00:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
AP's already picked through the gruesome national exit polling from Tuesday. I'd like to highlight one additional piece of data that is especially interesting: According to CNN's figures, Mitt Romney actually won white Millenials (18-29 year olds) by seven points, 51-44, despite losing the broader demographic by 23 points. (McCain lost young voters by 35 points in 2008).
Virtually all of Romney's gains within this age bracket came from young whites. He got absolutely demolished by young people of color; losing young Hispanics by 51 points, and young blacks by 83 points. The specific age breakdown of Asian voters isn't available, but Asians broke 3-to-1 for Obama overall, so an approximate extrapolation isn't particularly difficult.
The demographic implications of Tuesday's results are becoming increasingly obvious: Republicans simply cannot win elections without dramatically improving their standing and image among non-whites. If they don’t, they’ll quite literally lose the future.
yes he also won with white women
He actually won the majority of whites in California and New York as well.
RE: yes he also won with white women
Married white women yes. But what about SINGLE White women?
The trend is not our friend:
White voters as % of electorate 1992 - 87%
White voters as % of electorate 2012 - 72%
With non-whites voting 80% plus Dem, and growing at a much faster rate due to births and immigration, the Dems have a big advantage.
I would take issue with the emerging narrative that repubs must get greater minority acceptance. What repubs need to do is increase their share of the white vote to 3/4 like most other groups. That along with keeping their current minority take would ensure victory for quite a few years,
If the repubs cave on immigration reform, demographically, we are doomed.
Stating that reality still seems to offend some.
Never happen within a majority class.
A minority is a clique. They find solace in unity.
A majority thinks it can afford to split and fight with itself.
Why would anybody put any relevance on exit polling after 2004? Remember exit polling showing Kerry winning in a land slide? People lie, sometimes just for the hell of it.
The single white women like to pretend ........
Romney got 61% of the white vote this time. If he had campaigned as a true conservative and had the record to support him, I think he would have captured up to 65%. He would have won the election....
Anyhow, I am aware that there is at least a 1/4 hardcore leftist faction within the white vote. They will never be swayed.
If you think whites can’t vote as a block, think again. I believe that Mississippi and Alabama are close to 40% black/minority, but the top political offices go repub due to voter solidarity. I think that such things will become more commonplace as the demographic reality starts to become more apparent to people. I don’t really think this is a good thing. People should vote based on merit of candidate only, but since the dems are causing this to happen, future race-block voting will become increasingly more attractive to white voters as well.
“According to CNN’s figures, Mitt Romney actually won white Millenials (18-29 year olds) by seven points, 51-44, despite losing the broader demographic by 23 points. (McCain lost young voters by 35 points in 2008).”
I don’t think the economy the next four years is going to be any better for young blacks than the last four - which will give the best and brightest in the GOP some opportunity there.
And if all the hoopla about “Hispanics & Evangelicals” and “Hispanics & pro-life Catholics” is correct, then their caucuses (Evagelicals and Catholics) are the ones who need to work on “Hispanic youth”.
a good number to have for California would be unregistered “whites”
They don't care if they're worse off, as long as everyone else is worse off, it's the great equalizer. "Miserable people need everyone else to be miserable, then they're happy."
I never thought Mississippi would be a political role model, but it does illustrate that whites can unify.
Still, there's no reason Republicans can't flip Latino and Asian. It's not like they are on a plantation. These are independent people, integrating into larger society by inter-marrying, education, political office. Most are successful and friendly to us on social issues.
Well, you know whites in Miss and Al are toothless, rednecks...that’s meme the msm pushes.. /sarc
Anyhow, you are quite right. We can do better with conservative-leaning hispanics and asians....although, thinking in such terms is kind of stupid..
Hispanics are not a uniform blob...you have Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans...all different sub-groups with differing socio-political tendencies...we should micotarget conservative leaning elements in each. Having a candidate that is fluent in Spanish would definitely help. Advertising in Spanish-language media is a must. Ditto for Asian sub-groups and media outlets.
Dems have been successful in generalizing these groups, we have to divide and conquer as it were. It will take culturally and media savy repubs to pry out our natural allies in these voting groups.
I will posit that a strong conservative message will appeal to a much larger share of these groups. Perhaps, not a majority, but enough combined with increased white vote to make the difference.
I really hate all this race-based, ethnic-based stuff. For now, we have to employ the tools of the left to defeat the left. Later, when the dust settles, we will want to gradually destroy the labels and help these groups self-identify as simply patriotic Americans.
I'm puzzled that the Asian-Americans go so strongly for Obama. I guess that group isn't made up of mostly conservative, very family oriented, over-achieving Americans of Japanese and Chinese ancestry. I'm sure the Asia group contains many more elements now, but the 3 to 1 for Obama is surprising.
“The demographic implications of Tuesday’s results are becoming increasingly obvious: Republicans simply cannot win elections without dramatically improving their standing and image among non-whites. If they dont, theyll quite literally lose the future.”
The conundrum here is that if the Pubbies try to “improve their standing and image among non-whites” by changing their overall message (by changing what “conservatism” is supposed to represent), they will
1. Lose the white voters, and
2. No longer have a party that stood for what it stands for today.
That’s the dispiriting reality of the 2012 election.
Just had lunch this afternoon with a friend across the border in New York state. He understands the problems conservatives and Republicans have in New York, where they are simply outnumbered by the leftists. Conservatives just don’t have enough votes to win majorities or influence in either state or federal elections any more. It’s really as simple as that.
As a country, we are tipping in the direction of states like California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. That is, before much longer the voice of conservatism is going to be drowned out by demographics — the exploding Hispanic population, growing numbers of Asians (who on the surface SEEM to act as conservatives, but who in reality voted for Obama in higher numbers than did Hispanics!).
I have no answer for this (at least on the federal level).
Numbers are what they are.
Demographics are what they are. You can’t argue much with them.
I do have ideas as to how conservative Americans can deal with the future, on a state-wise level. But that’s the subject of future postings...
“yes he also won with white women”
I would like to introduce you to a new voting bloc, and a new term for that voting block that in this post, I lay claim to:
Obama won something like 70% of them — the young, female voters whose primary political interests seem in protecting their personal sovereignty over their “lady parts”.
A tip of the hat for Sandra Fluke for leading the way on this one!