Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Groups and voting
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Melana Zyla Vickers, in USA Today, says that "all eyes are on the women's vote". Well, I'd agree that some eyes are on it, but not all. Women are, per Ms. Vickers, showing a little different priorities in this election:
What's unmistakable, though, is that this gap — which led more women than men to favor Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996 — doesn't seem to be promising to blow as wide for Democrats in this election.
That's actually good news for the Bush campaign.
The most recent Pew numbers show that white women continue to favor Bush over Kerry, 48% to 44%, even after the debates. By contrast, in Bush vs. Gore, white women split their vote evenly.
Trust and security are where Bush has made gains with white women.

Then there's the Jewish vote, which Peter Beinart, isn't really the "Jewish vote" anymore, thanks to George Bush:
But that won't be true. Because while President Bush hasn't realigned the Jewish vote, he has done something even more intriguing: He has ended it.
Gee, great, but what does that mean?
This year, for probably the first time, Orthodox Jews will vote like "traditionalist" Christians. Conservative, Reform and non-affiliated Jews, on the other hand, will vote like secular, or "modernist," Christians. And the Jewish vote, in a meaningful sense, will cease to exist.
Essentially, the bloc vote is dead and Jews are voting more like their Christian cousins. His explanation of why this is so is interesting. However its effect is minimal:
Don't expect this to have a dramatic impact at the polls. Orthodox Jews make up less than 10 percent of the American Jewish population, so even though they will probably vote overwhelmingly for President Bush, he will still overwhelmingly lose the Jewish vote as a whole.
The important thing here is he picks up a segment of that vote he didn't have before, just as he does with white women.

Which brings us to black voters. If the Jewish vote is dead, the "black vote" seems to be on life support - at least in terms of a sure Democrat vote:
According to two polls released over the week just passed, President Bush has picked up significant ground among black voters. A New York Times poll showed black support for the president at 17 percent. A poll of larger scope done by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, an organization specializing in studying black issues, showed 18 percent black support for Bush. Although black support at this level for Bush/ Cheney is still low, it nevertheless represents a doubling of the 8 percent of the black vote that the Republican ticket received in 2000.
If anything, this election could prove that the monolithic black vote which was a given in Democrat poll calculations is anything but a sure bet anymore.

In this particular election, however, there's one voting group I'm not seeing considered as significant. That's among veterans. Granted vets are a diverse group and a large group, some 26 million, if I recall. And usually they're all over the place ideologically.
According to Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist, veterans constitute 19 percent of the American public. A four-year-old study by Feaver concluded that 37 percent of them were Republicans, 31 percent were Democrats and the rest were divided among independents, minor parties and political nonparticipants.
But this is a little different election this time:
A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.
Note the 6% difference between the military vets and the non vets in terms of Bush over Kerry. Rassmussen's internals show this may be because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also show this:
Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.
Those are significant numbers, especially when you consider the size of the veteran's voting bloc.

The one subject Rasmussen studiously avoids in the polling is the Vietnam question, or more bluntly, anti-war Kerry question. What normally splits the vet's vote are issues dear to vets such as veteran's benefits, health care, social security and the like. But to many vets this election term, there is an even more important and overriding issue at stake. Kerry's fitness for command given his anti-war activities after Vietnam.

I'm pretty plugged into the vets community and I've never, ever heard talk like I've heard about John Kerry among veterans. Let me succintly characterize it by saying the comments could easily interchange "Fonda" for "Kerry" if you know what I mean. There are a great number of vets who are still angry about those two and intend to demonstrate that anger on Nov. 2nd.

So this is shaping up to be an interesting vote. Bush has picked up more women, minorities and vets than he had in 2000. Again, sticking with my prediction that is at least 9 months old, Bush is a decisive win, somewhere in the 51- 47 - 2 range.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But 3% is still too little. The Dems can argue over 3% easily. Lawsuits are simple over 3%.

I'd prefer a 60-40 split myself, but at this point I'll take a win, however it comes out.
 
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
A 3% gap in a big state is an overwhelming victory. Taking Florida in 2000, about 6 million votes were cast there. 3% of that is 180,000 votes. No candidate is going to challenge an election with that big a hill to climb.

3% of a smaller state might be easier to overcome by a challenge, but a small state may not make a difference in the Electoral Vote.

And 3% of the country is going to be around 3.3 million people. That's a big win.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Not going to challenge? Hell, they damn near already have. They'll challenge anything where the outcome doesn't favor Kerry.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Several problems with the analysis, McQ.

The first and most obvious one is the argument about Bush increasing his share of the black vote. I personally think its wishful thinking. People don't forget the Bob Jones visit, the Charles Pickering nomination, and the (perceived) voter suppression efforts overnight. Unless you think all blacks are stupid and don't know what is good for them, there is a reason blacks overwhelmingly vote against the GOP. The GOP is the party for white people.

As this link shows, GOP funded research has shown that if minorities turnout in large numbers, Bush is in trouble.

http://www.fabmac.com/FMA-2004-10-27-Battleground-Ballot.pdf

Let's illustrate this another way. Let's say for every 100,000 new Black voters, Bush does get 17,000, instead of 8000. That means Kerry gets 83,000.

But let's say that Black turnout is up 3,000,000 this year. That means Bush 510,000 and Kerry gets 2,490,000.

And is Black turnout expected to increase? In a word, yes.

Of course, McQ also ignores that first-time voters are skewing heavily for Kerry (by an average of 12 percentage points).

Let's put it this way, if I were spending a lot of time with veterans and lived in a Red state in the South (Like McQ) I would probably also think that Bush's prospects look good. On the other hand, if I were spending a lot of time with first-time voters in a swing state (like me), I would think Bush's chances don't look good at all.

I guess we shall see on Nov. 2. (Unless there's a little too much "caging" going on.)

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Unofficial poll on my wife's pregancy msg board.

100 Kerry
142 Bush

Just another small sample that seems as reliable as Zogby or gallup (given their results)

hehehe
 
Written By: Ed
URL: http://
Unofficial poll on the dorm across from the Watergate Hotel in DC.

Bush - 8
Kerry - 6

Margin of error - 3 (one add said "f**k bush" which was interpreted to be a vote against Bush-For Kerry. Two signs said GW, which we presumed did not mean George Washington.)


And MK - you don't think 'minorities' are insulted with the recent implications that they are too stupid to fill out the ballot or the registration by themselves or that the 'less complicated' ballot is good for 'minorities' and favors Kerry?

I guess you think maybe they're too stupid to realize they're being insulted, right?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey, and Mk - when you said first time voters - how do you know this is the first time those dead people are voting? Maybe they voted for Dewey last time out.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
MK - Soft racism at it's greatest!

When you talk to minorities, do you speak slowly so they will understand and pat them on the head when you're done?

Sad. Racism will never go away with people like you.
 
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
I really liked the part about the 'GOP is the party for white people' - yes, that was exactly what Lincoln must have been thinking.

The ironies are awesome.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Again. I will say this slowly.

If you believe the GOP is best party for Blacks, then you must - must - be a racist. Got it? Why? Because you are saying that 80 to 90 percent of Blacks do not know what is good for them.

You can try to spin it any other way, but it just does not work.

Political parties represent factions in the electorate. Those factions can break down along several lines. (Gay, those making over 100k, dog owners, Red Sox fans, etc.) And that is not to say one can be a member of a faction represented primarily by one party and still swear allegiance to the other party. Andf that also does not mean that over time that factions may shift their allegiances, and in the process may come to be represented in equal numbers by each party. And in that sense, they are no longer factions.

But the FACT is that today, 2004, between 80 and 90 percent of blacks vote Democratic. And again, unless you think that Blacks as a group are stupid, then there is a legitimate reason such a large number of them vote Democratic.

I think Blacks vote Democratic because the Democrats represent their interests better than the GOP. The GOP, by contrast, represents the interests of white evangelicals better than the Dems. That is why they vote GOP more than the Dems. That is not racist; that is fact.

Yes, some groups may not be as monolithic in their voting pattens as they once were. And that may be because their interests have shifted or the tent of the party in question may have expanded their way.
But to say bloc voting is dead is silly - it is not dead. White evangelicals, for instance, vote Republican much more now then they ever did before. And that trend will only continue.

And when 5 out of 6 Blacks vote for the other guy, and you consider that a good thing, that says more about your candidate than it could ever say about Blacks.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The Dems kicked most if not all the racists out of the party 30 years ago. They migrated to the GOP.

Trent Lott? Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms? David Duke? Nixon's Southern Strategy?

Lincoln? If you have to go that far back to find the GOP champion of civil rights, I rest my case.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK - it is startling that you can't see your post for what it is.

'Blacks' will vote a certain way because, well, after all, they are 'black'.

Screw their social standing, their community, their personal beliefs, their upbringing, their ability to decide what is best for them and their family. They'll vote a certain way because of their skin color, end of discussion.

I prefer the idea they can decide for themselves without having to refer to their skin color in the mirror to make their decisions. Abhorrent as that idea may be to someone like Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan.

You clod - if your highly simplistic theory held true then all the 'whites' voting for Kerry would be voting for Bush because the GOP is the party of White people (you said so).

You just don't see it do you...it's beyond being sad, it's actually quite comical.
Look up the word STEROTYPE. I'll say that slowly for you...
S T E R E O T Y P E.

Hey, and you missed the opportunity to point out that 'evengelicals' are probably 'fundamentalists', are probably fanatics, are probably racists, are probably
voting for Bush. Just don't tell Condi and Colin and Thomas, okay?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Sheeple are of every race, gender, creed, etc., though there are perhaps greater concentrations in some groups than others. I think most voters really haven't any idea what is actually in their best interest, since so many rely on other sources for their information (which reaches them thru more-or-less biased filters), and even more so for how to interpret that information.
I suspect the percentage of people who actually do check out varied sources so that they can vote reasonably well-informed is low, in the 15-25% range at best. This is a major problem with democracy, IMHO, and one which tracks several aspects of human nature so well that I don't see any way it can be significantly ameliorated.
 
Written By: Aristomedes
URL: http://
McQ raised the issue. Not me.

Let's do it a different way. I will ask a question instead.

Why do Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Huh? There are only two possible answers. They do so intelligently. Or they do so unintelligently. Which is it, huh, Looker? What is your answer?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Im pretty plugged into the vets community and Ive never, ever heard talk like Ive heard about John Kerry among veterans. Let me succintly characterize it by saying the comments could easily interchange "Fonda" for "Kerry" if you know what I mean. There are a great number of vets who are still angry about those two and intend to demonstrate that anger on Nov. 2nd.


I'm plugged into the reality-based community, and I have never, ever, ever, heard anything approaching the anger that ordinary, everyday citizens have with Bush. And they intend to demonstrate it on Nov. 2.

There are many people who live in Red States (or in Red parts of Blue and Swing states) who simply do not understand the level of anger out there.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
If you believe the GOP is best party for Blacks, then you must - must - be a racist. Got it? Why? Because you are saying that 80 to 90 percent of Blacks do not know what is good for them.

This is undoubtedly the stupidest thing you have ever said, and you've said some pretty stupid things. I guess you're always striving for a personal best.

Blacks won't forget the Pickering nomination, especially the blacks who supported Pickering. Blacks also won't forget that the Democrats fillibustered the nomination of Janice Brown.

Blacks are getting fed up with a Democratic Party that stifles any attempt at school vouchers, and younger blacks are siding more with Republicans than the previous generation.

20 years from now, you'll find the black vote is split move evenly between the parties. When that happens, the Dems may never win another race.

Of course, McQ also ignores that first-time voters are skewing heavily for Kerry (by an average of 12 percentage points).

Actually, that's not true. A recent poll shows that voters who registered since 2000 are supporting Bush 49-46.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Well, Mk - and this doesn't apply to 'Blacks' only - if someone is voting because their union, or their church, or their group leader, is telling them to and they don't bother to see if they are being told the square deal, they're voting un-intelligently.

My family once voted solidly union, Democrat. Some of us still do, some of us don't.
Some of the ones that probably fit your image of a white, non-union rich guy will vote for Kerry this time around.
And some of us who wouldn't fit that image will be voting for Bush.

And I deal with your reality people every day.
If you think the anger is a resource that only one party has a lock on, think again.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The Dems kicked most if not all the racists out of the party 30 years ago. They migrated to the GOP.

Trent Lott? Strom Thurmond? Jesse Helms? David Duke? Nixon`s Southern Strategy?

Lincoln? If you have to go that far back to find the GOP champion of civil rights, I rest my case.
Who is Robert Byrd?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: Unknown
Why do Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Huh? There are only two possible answers. They do so intelligently. Or they do so unintelligently.
Or, they do it for social and cultural reasons. Peer pressure, memetics, received knowledge, etc.

Don't be foolish, MK. And this is foolish...
If you believe the GOP is best party for Blacks, then you must - must - be a racist. Got it? Why? Because you are saying that 80 to 90 percent of Blacks do not know what is good for them.
Actually, I believe 80-90 percent of *people* don't "know what is good for them" in a rational sense. People act according to their perceptions and personal, subjective values. And those things are more similar to rent-seeking behaviour than to principles and long-term benefit.

I think it's a great shame, a great discredit, that the "leadership" of the (predominantly) black culture engages almost wholly in this rent-seeking behaviour with respect to elections.

Al Sharpton summed it up most ironically, when he said "our vote is not for sale". Ironic, because if you look at his platform, that is EXACTLY what his vote was. For sale. Virtually every economic bit of his platform was rent-seeking.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with culture and sociology. (and, as far as I can tell, it seems to be a common problem among recently-oppressed minority groups--in any country, of any color, sect, etc--who have self-segregated themselves.

At any rate, this is a serious and important issue, and I assume we can all be adults in discussing it. So, spare us the name-calling.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
MK has a math problem as well regarding Bush and the African-American vote. Simply put, if the vote for Bush in this bloc increases from 8% to 18%, it would take a total increase of votes cast of over 31% for that not to be a net increase for Bush. (Example: a 92%-8% split of 10,000,000 votes results in a 8,400,000 vote difference in Kerry's favor. To reach that same vote difference in an 82%-18% split requires 13,125,000 votes to be cast - and that's just to break even.)
I have not seen any polling that indicates anything near a 31% increase in African-American vote totals over 2000 is likely. So, if Bush increases his share of this vote as is being projected, Kerry has problems.
 
Written By: mrybill
URL: http://
MK- Racist until the end.

I do not believe that intelligent people vote based on the color of their skin.

MK believes that people vote by the color of their skin.

Oh, and I'm not white, so should I be voting differently MK?

Because of you and people like you who need racism to feel pious, racism will not go away. You are the cause of what you hate so much.

And November 3rd, I have a feeling you will not be showing your face around here.
 
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
Actually, I believe 80-90 percent of *people* don't "know what is good for them" in a rational sense. People act according to their perceptions and personal, subjective values. And those things are more similar to rent-seeking behaviour than to principles and long-term benefit.

I think it's a great shame, a great discredit, that the "leadership" of the (predominantly) black culture engages almost wholly in this rent-seeking behaviour with respect to elections.

Al Sharpton summed it up most ironically, when he said "our vote is not for sale". Ironic, because if you look at his platform, that is EXACTLY what his vote was. For sale. Virtually every economic bit of his platform was rent-seeking.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with culture and sociology. (and, as far as I can tell, it seems to be a common problem among recently-oppressed minority groups--in any country, of any color, sect, etc--who have self-segregated themselves.

At any rate, this is a serious and important issue, and I assume we can all be adults in discussing it. So, spare us the name-calling.



No name calling here. Just the facts. Sorry if they make you uncomfortable.

The constant criticism from the right over the years - implicit and explicit - has been that Blacks have been duped into voting for Democrats. That Democrats don't apptreciate them. That they are fools.

Now, those on the right don't want to admit that, of course. They want to deny it. But that does not mean it is not true.

And it is this attitude - this condescending attitude, that is racist. Again, try to spin it. Call me a racist for explicitly saying what has been implicit for years.

And John, some of the things you just said are outrageous.

Blacks are "self-segregating"? Well, I suppose that explains about 10% of their segregation. Oppressed groups do tend to isolate themselves from their oppressors. But to call that self-imposed is really, really dumb.

Second, it is condescending as hell to say that 80 to 90 percent of people do not know what they want. Nonsense. People know what they want. And most vote for the party that best represents their interests.

Rent-seeking behavior by the Black leadership? Huh? Again, this is simply nonsense. Like many other groups making up the Dems, they trade their power for what they can get. But to imply that some groups are more saavy than Blacks and thus engagge in less rent-seeking behavior in the horse trading that is modern politics again borders on the bigoted. Blacks are no better and no worse at it. And to say that the Black leadership does not have the best interests of Blacks in mind insults both their leaders and their constituiences. Again, it's just the same tired Blacks-don't-know-what-is-good-for-them-otherwise-they-would-vote-GOP mentality that is the very reason Blacks vote Democratic in such great numbers.

I assume we can all be adults too. But to suggest that the historical antagonism between Blacks and the GOP over the last 35 years has no basis in reality or fact and is merely a mirage is simply dumb.

I know, I know - I'm a racist. Just tell me again.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Blacks are "self-segregating"? Well, I suppose that explains about 10% of their segregation. Oppressed groups do tend to isolate themselves from their oppressors. But to call that self-imposed is really, really dumb.
Oh? I find the tendency to move into almost-all-black neighborhoods "self-segregation". I find the tendency to attend all-black churches "self-segregation". Etc. I think the same thing has occurred with the Jews in Israel, with other ethnic groups in major cities (Chinatown, Little Italy, etc), and with whites in South Africa.

There is certainly a *reason* for the self-segregation--one I can partially understand--but it is still self-imposed. And--ultimately, I believe--deleterious.

Second, it is condescending as hell to say that 80 to 90 percent of people do not know what they want.
Boy, that would be a stupid thing to say. Fortunately, I didn't say it.

Rent-seeking behavior by the Black leadership? Huh? Again, this is simply nonsense.
If you look at Al Sharpton's priorities, you'll find that a great many of them are *precisely* rent-seeking: socialized health care, more progressive taxation, minimum wage increase, etc.
Like many other groups making up the Dems, they trade their power for what they can get.
Uh, yeah...so, rent-seeking.
But to imply that some groups are more saavy than Blacks and thus engagge in less rent-seeking behavior in the horse trading that is modern politics again borders on the bigoted.
Actually, people who demand less government intervention are engaging in "less rent-seeking behaviour". That's not a function of color, nor is the black leaderships rent-seeking a function of color.

It's a function of the culture...a culture which has grown up around a horribly oppressed people. (I'm libertarian, so I believe the legal oppression of the blacks was one of the great shames of not only the pre-civil war era, but the 20th century, too)

And to say that the Black leadership does not have the best interests of Blacks in mind...
I'm sure they believe they do. But they--in the person of people like Sharpton--are being lobbyists. They are not working, not for equality, but for advocacy. There is a difference, and I think that difference is important.

I don't think you're a racist. I just think you're missing the social and cultural impact of history, and how that impact is reflecting itself in voting patterns. Blacks vote for Democrats, because Democrats pander to blacks the most.

At one time, Democrats took the lead in demanding equal rights under the law. That is to their credit. Since then, though, the Democrats have shifted from demanding equal rights--racism is no longer a legal problem--to demanding special rights. And blacks--like ANY group--respond to that. It's just that simple.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider