PDA

View Full Version : Obama's White Support Is Too Low to Win



Sev
06-25-2012, 03:09 PM
Rut Row Shaggy!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._114579-2.html

President Obama does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008. At the same time, electoral data indicates Mitt Romney has not yet attracted enough of these white voters to capitalize on Obama's weakness.

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That's likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reaganís share of the white vote in 1984 -- presuming all else remains constant since 2008 -- Romney would rout Obama.

Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89 percent of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85 percent in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74 percent. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much.

Take Michael Dukakisí fate as an example. In 1988, George H.W. Bushís margin of victory exceeded Obamaís in 2008. But if Obamaís level of white support in 2012 equals Dukakisí, and all else remains the same from 2008, Obama would likely narrowly win. He would lack a mandate and risk immediate lame-duck status. But he would survive with white support that once sundered Democrats.

Unless . . .

What if Obama doesn't even match Dukakis with whites? Thatís the dynamic of 2012. This electorate has a white floor. And it has broken for this president. Democrats cannot depend on demographics to save them.

Should Romney win the whites Obama lost, Romney will only need to perform as well as John McCain with minorities to win. This is true even under Democratsí most optimistic, and unlikely, demographic scenario: that the white share of the electorate decreases another two percentage points from 2008, blacks turn out at the same historic levels they did then, and the Hispanic share of the vote rises from 9 to 11 percent of the electorate while Obama retains the same level of support from other minority groups.

The white margin to watch: 61-39. Thatís the rough break-even point. Obama likely needs more than 39 percent of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61 percent of whites to assure Obamaís defeat (or 60.5 in some scenarios). These are estimates based on an electorate that matches the diversity of 2008 or is slightly less white. It presumes the Electoral College outcome does not diverge from the winner of the popular vote (loose talk aside, itís only happened four times in U.S. history).

Thus, Obama can do a little worse than Dukakis, and Romney must perform a little better than Bush circa 1988. Whites favored Reagan in 1984 by a 64-35 margin. They favored Bush in 1988 by a 59-40 margin. Four years ago, whites favored McCain by a 55-43 margin.

Only 37 or 38 percent of whites back Obama today, according to the Gallup Pollís authoritative weekly averages since early April (which have a larger sample size than most polls combined). The rub for Romney? In those same matchups, Romney only wins 54 percent of whites. Other surveys show the same. CNNís latest pegged the white margin at 53-39. FOX Newsí latest, 51-35. Ipsos-Reuters, 53-38. The Pew Research Center's polls have, however, shown Obama stronger this year. Its recent survey placed the margin at 54-41.

Writ large, Obama appears below his floor with whites. But so does Romney. Obama has too few whites saying yea to a second term. And Romney has converted too few nays to his side. Notably, the same share of whites say they will vote for Obama as approve of his job performance.

These whites constitute, by far, the largest share of the swing vote. The president depends on Hispanics to partly compensate for his weakness with whites. Thatís possible in some states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. But Latinos are less than a 10th of the electorate in every other swing state.

Obamaís recent immigration decision will probably help secure his Hispanic flank. But he already had the support of nearly two-thirds of Hispanics by Gallupís measure -- roughly the share he earned in 2008. Hispanicsí views of Obama have, however, fluctuated more than whitesí.

That steady white opposition should now concern Democrats. Obamaís broken floor with whites appears to be his new foundation. And itís more than a white working-class problem. In fact, it always is. The white male gap helps explain why. Economic class and education do not impact white men and women the same way.

Currently, among white college graduates, according to Gallup data, 48 percent of women favor Obama and 40 percent of men do as well. Among working-class whites, 37 percent of women favor Obama and 30 percent of men agree.

Obama had a breakthrough with white men a political world ago. He performed better with white men than every Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter (a point to remember, when Obama's race is raised). Obama performed better than John Kerry, though slightly worse than Al Gore and Bill Clinton four years earlier, with white women (see my wrap-up of 2008 for more details). Obamaís current support with white men, 34 percent, reflects about where he stood with them before the September stock market crash.

That crash was critical to the making of this presidentís mandate. Now the economy threatens to unmake his presidency. Those voters who swung to Obama with the crash have left him, above all else, because they came to believe he did not focus enough on the Great Recession that followed the crash. Thatís no small side note, especially on the cusp of the Supreme Courtís health care ruling. Obama chose to invest his political capital in that cause over others, such as a new New Deal.

Whites helped give Obama his capital. He began his presidency with at least six-in-10 whites behind him. His white support first fell, as with independents, below 50 percent in the summer of 2009. Washington was then consumed with health care. Americans then felt consumed by hard times. The health care law passed in early 2010. Only about a third of whites approved of it. Why? Begin with the mommy-daddy politics that molds modern American politics. Soon after the law passed, Obama tried to pivot to the economy. But it was too late. Governing is choosing. And by the midterm elections, as I first reported the morning after, Democrats suffered unprecedented white flight. Obamaís party paid for the economy but also his choices.

Today, the demographic status quo is not good for either candidate. The long-term future favors Democrats. The GOP must reconcile itself with the browning of America. But even in early 2009, amid renewed talk of an emerging Democratic majority, it was clear that demographics are not electoral destiny. That Democratic majority has not emerged over the past decade because Democrats have not made sustained inroads with the actual demographic majority.

How quickly that proved true. In 2010, whites backed GOP House candidates by a 60-38 margin. It gave Republicans a historic landslide. The white margin two years ago roughly matches the break-even point today. Thatís because presidential electorates are browner and blacker, though possibly not enough for Democrats. Plainly put, the data shows that Romney will likely win if he matches his partyís minority support in 2008 and its majority support in 2010.

Democrats have come to depend on diversity. But even today, diversity may not prove enough to save Obama.

Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 05:42 PM
Hey, not to change the subject, but weren't you one of the ones on here telling us about how we on the left were so terrified about the HUGE impact that Sara Palin would have on putting McCain in the White House?

LOL, yeah, you were.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW, did you vote in the primaries?

G.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 10:49 AM
This is an interesting but incomplete analysis.

We don't elect the president by national popular vote, but by the electoral college.

Unless this analysis pertains to the electoral college math, and in particular, to the swing states, it is irrelevant.

I do not see that analysis performed in what was quoted, and the link gives a 404 error, so I cannot check.

Updated: I missed this in the original post:

These are estimates based on an electorate that matches the diversity of 2008 or is slightly less white. It presumes the Electoral College outcome does not diverge from the winner of the popular vote (loose talk aside, itís only happened four times in U.S. history).

Then there's this:

The president depends on Hispanics to partly compensate for his weakness with whites. Thatís possible in some states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. But Latinos are less than a 10th of the electorate in every other swing state.

Almost certainly, the polling Gallup relied on which informs this piece was done prior to the recent Obama executive power play on the Dream Act lite. Likely, then, whatever was assumed to be his share of the Latino vote up to that point based on numbers in the time they were unhappy with him are quite a bit up, as they are now quite happy with him.

Sev
06-26-2012, 10:55 AM
Must have got truncated.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...uhn_114579.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/22/obamas_white_support_is_too_low_to_win_2012_romney _white_male_gap_white_women_kuhn_114579.html)

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 11:01 AM
I had already found it by digging past the front page, but yes, the new link works now.

But here's the question.

Could a decline in white votes put NY, CA, MA, or other strongly blue states in play for Romney? I say no, it would be irrelevant.

Could a decline in white votes change the red states, and maybe take some of those out of the Obama column? He mainly didn't win them anyway, but where he did-- VA, NC-- perhaps on the margin.

Is the electorate comprised of the same demographics as in '08? NO, it is NOT. (White percentages continue their decline as a share.)

WILL Romney do as well with minorities as McCain did last time?

Almost certainly not. McCain had sponsored the immigration reform W proposed, and had no ties to Big Money comparable to Romney's.

Wild card: the underground and seldom mentioned, but provable in polling, 20% or so of those who will not vote for a Mormon. That impacts Romney's white Christian evangelist/born again prospects most severely.

The bottom line for this article, really, is that Obama's win will be slight, and it will impact his political capital going forward.

Sev
06-26-2012, 11:13 AM
The demographics will always change.
You also have to consider that while many minorities my be democrats there is also a transition to the other side as the aisle as well.
As time plays out I believe a certain amount of equilibrium will be achieved within the minorities just as it is with Caucasians.

By the way why are woman considered a minority when they are a majority?

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 12:49 PM
As time plays out I believe a certain amount of equilibrium will be achieved within the minorities just as it is with Caucasians.

As LBJ predicted, and has gone on possibly longer than even he foresaw (for a generation, he said), the Democrats have lost the white vote ever since the Civil Rights Act's passage. The 'equilibrium' there is about 60-40 in favor of the GOP, and has been fairly stable. The reverse is still more true, with the Democrats at a 90% or so rate among the blacks, but they turn out less (and are often barred from voting from felony convictions from the drug war, when their votes are not otherwise surpressed).

In terms of minorities, the impact is greatest among the highest birth rate and/or immigrant rate (once they become legally eligible voters). That is the Latino population, mainly, which the GOP is setting themselves up (against the smarter advice of even Karl Rove and the Bushs) to lose for the same generation-long or more that LBJ saw for the white vote and the Democrats.

Nobody much discusses the Asian-American vote, which I presume is expanding as a share of the electorate as well, but perhaps not, as prosperity leads to lower birth rates. The Jewish-American vote is likewise not going higher, and it's stable at about 75% for Democrats.

By the way why are woman considered a minority when they are a majority?

An interesting question, which I don't know the answer for. But it isn't part of the 'minority' analysis of this piece.

It's another way for Obama to do better with 'white' votes, however, as among white women. One question about this piece is how current are the various Gallup figures it is based upon? Especially as to the effects of the Dream Act lite action of Obama.

As the author says, his support there, although strong, has fluctuated more than with other minorities. If this is shored up, and GOES up some points, the arithmetic changes as well.

Sev
06-26-2012, 07:03 PM
I read somewhere that Asians trend conservative due to their cultural work ethic.
Of course the further you get out from the first generations that my not hold true.

However I would not be opposed to allowing 20-30 million Asians into the country as an experiment.
They might very well become the next ruling class.
Based on their history I somehow doubt that the blacks and Hispanics will ever rise to the occasion.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 09:46 AM
Preliminary reporting on Asian-American votes last time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The jury is still out on exactly how and in what numbers Asian Americans voted on Tuesday, but while number-crunching is underway the first, most "official" figure being reported is based on CNN/AP/Edison national exit poll data, finding that Asian Americans gave 68% of their three-party vote to Barack Obama, with the 35% going to John McCain, and 3% going to "Other" or else refusing to reply. This is broad-stroke projecting, and was based on a sample in which Asian Americans constituted only 2% of respondents. Overall, the "by race" tally (for the presidential race alone) looks like this:

White (74% of respondents) - 43% Obama, 55% McCain, 2% Other
African-American (13%) - 95% Obama, 4% McCain, 1% Other
Latino (9%) - 67% Obama, 31% McCain, 2% Other
Asian (2%) - 62% Obama, 35% McCain, 3% Other
Other Race (3%) - 66% Obama, 31% McCain, 3% Other

This finding -- if it holds upon further and finer examination -- indicates that the Asian American vote has maintained a leftward trend ever since a majority collectively backed George HW Bush against Bill Clinton in 1992. </div></div>

Here (http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/politics_law/election_debrief_1108.asp)

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 09:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rut Row Shaggy!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._114579-2.html

President Obama does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008. At the same time, electoral data indicates Mitt Romney has not yet attracted enough of these white voters to capitalize on Obama's weakness.

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That's likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reaganís share of the white vote in 1984 -- presuming all else remains constant since 2008 -- Romney would rout Obama.

Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89 percent of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85 percent in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74 percent. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much.

Take Michael Dukakisí fate as an example. In 1988, George H.W. Bushís margin of victory exceeded Obamaís in 2008. But if Obamaís level of white support in 2012 equals Dukakisí, and all else remains the same from 2008, Obama would likely narrowly win. He would lack a mandate and risk immediate lame-duck status. But he would survive with white support that once sundered Democrats.

Unless . . .

What if Obama doesn't even match Dukakis with whites? Thatís the dynamic of 2012. This electorate has a white floor. And it has broken for this president. Democrats cannot depend on demographics to save them.

Should Romney win the whites Obama lost, Romney will only need to perform as well as John McCain with minorities to win. This is true even under Democratsí most optimistic, and unlikely, demographic scenario: that the white share of the electorate decreases another two percentage points from 2008, blacks turn out at the same historic levels they did then, and the Hispanic share of the vote rises from 9 to 11 percent of the electorate while Obama retains the same level of support from other minority groups.

The white margin to watch: 61-39. Thatís the rough break-even point. Obama likely needs more than 39 percent of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61 percent of whites to assure Obamaís defeat (or 60.5 in some scenarios). These are estimates based on an electorate that matches the diversity of 2008 or is slightly less white. It presumes the Electoral College outcome does not diverge from the winner of the popular vote (loose talk aside, itís only happened four times in U.S. history).

Thus, Obama can do a little worse than Dukakis, and Romney must perform a little better than Bush circa 1988. Whites favored Reagan in 1984 by a 64-35 margin. They favored Bush in 1988 by a 59-40 margin. Four years ago, whites favored McCain by a 55-43 margin.

Only 37 or 38 percent of whites back Obama today, according to the Gallup Pollís authoritative weekly averages since early April (which have a larger sample size than most polls combined). The rub for Romney? In those same matchups, Romney only wins 54 percent of whites. Other surveys show the same. CNNís latest pegged the white margin at 53-39. FOX Newsí latest, 51-35. Ipsos-Reuters, 53-38. The Pew Research Center's polls have, however, shown Obama stronger this year. Its recent survey placed the margin at 54-41.

Writ large, Obama appears below his floor with whites. But so does Romney. Obama has too few whites saying yea to a second term. And Romney has converted too few nays to his side. Notably, the same share of whites say they will vote for Obama as approve of his job performance.

These whites constitute, by far, the largest share of the swing vote. The president depends on Hispanics to partly compensate for his weakness with whites. Thatís possible in some states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada. But Latinos are less than a 10th of the electorate in every other swing state.

Obamaís recent immigration decision will probably help secure his Hispanic flank. But he already had the support of nearly two-thirds of Hispanics by Gallupís measure -- roughly the share he earned in 2008. Hispanicsí views of Obama have, however, fluctuated more than whitesí.

That steady white opposition should now concern Democrats. Obamaís broken floor with whites appears to be his new foundation. And itís more than a white working-class problem. In fact, it always is. The white male gap helps explain why. Economic class and education do not impact white men and women the same way.

Currently, among white college graduates, according to Gallup data, 48 percent of women favor Obama and 40 percent of men do as well. Among working-class whites, 37 percent of women favor Obama and 30 percent of men agree.

Obama had a breakthrough with white men a political world ago. He performed better with white men than every Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter (a point to remember, when Obama's race is raised). Obama performed better than John Kerry, though slightly worse than Al Gore and Bill Clinton four years earlier, with white women (see my wrap-up of 2008 for more details). Obamaís current support with white men, 34 percent, reflects about where he stood with them before the September stock market crash.

That crash was critical to the making of this presidentís mandate. Now the economy threatens to unmake his presidency. Those voters who swung to Obama with the crash have left him, above all else, because they came to believe he did not focus enough on the Great Recession that followed the crash. Thatís no small side note, especially on the cusp of the Supreme Courtís health care ruling. Obama chose to invest his political capital in that cause over others, such as a new New Deal.

Whites helped give Obama his capital. He began his presidency with at least six-in-10 whites behind him. His white support first fell, as with independents, below 50 percent in the summer of 2009. Washington was then consumed with health care. Americans then felt consumed by hard times. The health care law passed in early 2010. Only about a third of whites approved of it. Why? Begin with the mommy-daddy politics that molds modern American politics. Soon after the law passed, Obama tried to pivot to the economy. But it was too late. Governing is choosing. And by the midterm elections, as I first reported the morning after, Democrats suffered unprecedented white flight. Obamaís party paid for the economy but also his choices.

Today, the demographic status quo is not good for either candidate. The long-term future favors Democrats. The GOP must reconcile itself with the browning of America. But even in early 2009, amid renewed talk of an emerging Democratic majority, it was clear that demographics are not electoral destiny. That Democratic majority has not emerged over the past decade because Democrats have not made sustained inroads with the actual demographic majority.

How quickly that proved true. In 2010, whites backed GOP House candidates by a 60-38 margin. It gave Republicans a historic landslide. The white margin two years ago roughly matches the break-even point today. Thatís because presidential electorates are browner and blacker, though possibly not enough for Democrats. Plainly put, the data shows that Romney will likely win if he matches his partyís minority support in 2008 and its majority support in 2010.

Democrats have come to depend on diversity. But even today, diversity may not prove enough to save Obama. </div></div>



<span style="color: #990000">Have you seen the latest polling data? BC Wall St., AND Quinnipaic....The President is leading in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, and leading among women, the young, and the Latino voters.

Hmmmm.... </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 12:10 PM
So, old white guys, not so much?

Who could have predicted that? LOL!

Gayle in MD
06-27-2012, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, old white guys, not so much?

Who could have predicted that? LOL! </div></div>

The Long Island Medium?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
06-27-2012, 08:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, not to change the subject, but weren't you one of the ones on here telling us about how we on the left were so terrified about the HUGE impact that Sara Palin would have on putting McCain in the White House?

LOL, yeah, you were.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW, did you vote in the primaries?

G. </div></div>

I believe I indicated that the left was terrified that if McCain died Palin would be president.

No. I didnt vote in the primaries.

Sev
06-27-2012, 08:36 PM
Thought what I read was more recent than HWB.

Perhaps not.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 12:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, not to change the subject, but weren't you one of the ones on here telling us about how we on the left were so terrified about the HUGE impact that Sara Palin would have on putting McCain in the White House?

LOL, yeah, you were.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

BTW, did you vote in the primaries?

G. </div></div>

I believe I indicated that the left was terrified that if McCain died Palin would be president.

<span style="color: #660000">Well, that certainly proved to be good thinking, wouldn't you say so? </span>

No. I didnt vote in the primaries. </div></div>

<span style="color: #660000">Oh? Why not?

G.</span>

Qtec
06-28-2012, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The health care law passed in early 2010. Only about a third of whites approved of it. Why? </div></div>

That's easy, ....because they are pig ignorant as shown by a recent study.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Most Americans oppose President Barack Obamaís healthcare reform <span style='font-size: 14pt'>even though they strongly support most of its provisions,</span> Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.

In other words, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Americans hate the law, but they love everything in it.</span>

Yep. Feel free to slam your head onto your desk, or smack your palm against your forehead or, hell, punch the person at desk next to you in the throat ó however you best emote complete exasperation with your fellow citizens, because these poll results illustrate everything thatís wrong and Simpsons-ish with America right now.</div></div>

link (http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/americans-hate-obamacare-while-loving-everything-about-it/)


Q

LWW
06-28-2012, 04:25 AM
Why do you hate the rule of law?

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thought what I read was more recent than HWB.

Perhaps not. </div></div>

That the Asian-American vote has turned more leftward since they gave GHWB a majority doesn't mean they didn't give other GOP candidates a (smaller) majority, or a 50-50 vote, in subsequent years, before the 2-1 Obama got.

Reading it to say that was the last time they gave the GOP candidate a majority is a fair reading, but trending more leftward since then could also mean either of the two alternatives I state above as well.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you hate the rule of law? </div></div>

As the ACA is a duly passed law, and as the SCOTUS has ruled it Constitutional now, why do YOU hate the rule of law? Or don't you?