History will thank the African-American, Latino, and Asian-American voters who saved the world

[ucrdem]

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

in 2012. Because the sad fact is that white voters didn't deliver on November 6, and had it not been for the good sense and yes, loyalty of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, we'd be looking to Salt Lake City to save us from hell on earth and driving around with "Support the NSA Tabernacle Choir" magnets on our no-longer-made-in-Detroit SUVs:

CS Monitor, November 7, 2012: Exit polls find that a key to Obama's victory was winning 93 percent of African-Americans, 71 percent of Hispanics, and 73 percent of Asians. Mitt Romney took most of the white vote, which is 72 percent of the electorate. But it wasn't enough.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1107/Election-results-2012-Who-won-it-for-Obama-video

KPPC, November 8th, 2012: Exit polls are showing that overwhelming majorities of Latino and Asian American voters - more than 70 percent of each group - voted to re-elect President Barack Obama on Tuesday. Together with black voters, who reportedly supported Obama in even higher proportions, these voters of color are credited with carrying key states for Obama and ultimately assuring his victory over Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2012/11/08/10969/did-voter-color-deliver-obamas-victory-maybe-so/

HuffPost, November 9, 2012: The black and Latino vote (as well as that of Asians, single women, gays and young voters) were crucial factors in President Obama's reelection. Not only was there a historic turnout of Latino voters and a larger share of African American voters this year, but an overwhelming majority of them voted "blue."

Exit polls show that Obama won the Hispanic vote by a dramatic margin of 71 percent to 27 percent, and the black vote by 93 percent. (Incidentally, Obama also won the Asian vote by 73 percent to 26 percent.) Romney, on the other hand, clinched 59 percent of the white vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/black-latino-vote-pernicious-narrative-conservative-pundits_n_2101550.html

Washington Post, November 8, 2012:




2008 - white voters who supported Obama: 43%


2012 - white voters who supported Obama: 39%


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/president-obama-and-the-white-vote-no-problem/

......................................
ETA: corrected the first link. The original link, to a Politico story on the 2008 exit polls, referred to in reply #57 below, was: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html . Apologies for the error.

[Crepuscular]

1. If you were truly serious in the title to your post

it would appear that you lack a thorough understanding of statistics. Without the 43% of white voters that voted for Obama, he would not have won, which would make them just as essential to "saving the world" as the lower numbers of minorities who voted albeit in higher percentages within their ethnic bloc.

If you are passing out credit, maybe it would just be a better idea to thank and applaud those who supported him, instead of singling some people out for more credit than maybe is deserving. Just a thought.

[ucrdem]

2. Obama didn't win 43% of white voters in 2012.

He won 39% and had it been up to white voters he would have lost in 2008. That's my point, in case it wasn't clear.

[Crepuscular]

3. But what you are missing

Is that 39% of the white vote represents more votes than all of the minority votes put together that supported Obama.

Whites voting for Obama represented approx. 28% of all the votes cast. The votes cast for Obama by Latino's, Blacks and Asians combined represented approx. 21% of all the votes cast.

So giving credit to those combined minorities while claiming that whites would have cost Obama the election is simply not an accurate statement.

Obama could not have won without the White support that he received. He also could not have won without the minority support that he received.

Why are you elevating some groups over others, instead of just thanking all of the supporters?

[ucrdem]

6. Romney got 59% of white votes cast in 2012.

Had it not been for the voters I'm thanking in the OP he'd be president.

[Crepuscular]

10. Yes, but.....

had it not been for the white voters that you are not thanking in the OP, he would not have been President.

I get that you like the fact that a large percentage of an individual minority group supported the President but the actual impact of that vote depends on what the actual percentage of the total electorate those votes represent.

70% of the Latino vote is great to get but it only represents 7% of the voters in this country. So if 70% of Latino's vote for the President the actual number of votes equals about 10% of White voters. Obama got 39% of the white vote, which represents 4 times as many actual votes as he received from the Latino community. That is not meant in any way to downplay the importance of minority voting, only to highlight the fact that he could not have won without the level of white voter support that he received.

[ucrdem]

11. Absent the voters I'm thanking, Romney would be president.

Absent white voters, Obama would be president. I don't see how the white electorate showered itself with glory in either year.

[Crepuscular]

12. Clearly you don't understand statistics

Your statement, absent white voters, Obama would be president is absolutely and totally false. Not even debatable.

Obama gained 51% (Approx) of the popular vote to win. 21% of that came from the 3 minority groups you applauded in the title. 28% came from white voters. 2% from "other". He most certainly could not have won without that 28% of the votes that came from white voters. No way, no how!

[ucrdem]

13. Oh please. This is really getting silly.

Suit yourself it makes you feel better but to suggest that absent white voters McCain or Romney would have won anything is just too inane.

[Crepuscular]

19. You said that...

Absent the minority votes that he received, Obama would not be President but that absent the white votes that he received, he would be President. That is simply not true and I explained why. I'm getting the feeling that you really don't understand even basic arithmatic and that you seem to think that 70% of the African-American vote or 75% of the Asian vote represents more votes then 39% of the white vote, which is not the case.

[ucrdem]

24. I'm sorry, but that's magical thinking.

I don't mean that as an insult, and I know you think you're the soul of scientific rationality. But it's ridiculous.

[Crepuscular]

25. Ok

No point in discussing this further. Get back to us when you achieve a basic understanding of math and statistics, because clearly you are lacking in that regard. Have a nice day.

[cali]

28. that was a somewhat alarming exchange

and not due to any lack of clarity on your part.

[ucrdem]

31. Confirmation bias isn't as alarming as you think.

Although this does strike me as a rather advanced case.

[cali]

37. say what?

are you actually admitting that you have a case of confirmation bias?

[ucrdem]

4. p.s. I do thank and applaud those who support him.

I just wish there were more of them.

[kiva]

5. Saved the world, eh?

Hyperbole...it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[ucrdem]

7. Have you been paying attention to Obama's travels this summer?

Or to John Kerry's? The world would be a far different place right now, and a far more desperate one, if not for the voters who literally saved the planet on November 6. It's not hyperbole. I'm perfectly serious. Do you see it differently?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Ah, American Exceptionalism.

This dog won't hunt out of our borders.

[cali]

9. lol.

who says the world is saved? You?

I have three words for you:

Rose. Colored. Glasses.

[cali]

14. A serious response.

I doubt history will look terribly kindly at this particular moment in world history, though it's difficult to know. I think one thing is pretty clear: President Obama will not be judged by historians as one of the greats. If I had to guess, he'll fall somewhere toward the bottom of the middle of the pack.

And it's for sure that he won't be credited by historians as having "saved the world"- at least at this point in his presidency. But then this isn't an action movie or a popularity contest.

[ucrdem]

15. Strongly disagree. I think that barring catastrophe his presidency outshine FDR's.

Then again, maybe Empress Palin will outshine them both, and history will forget all about that goofy guy from Chicago. But I doubt it.

[davidn3600]

18. His approval rating is in the 40s, and no one trusts the government anymore

To say he's going outshine a president that pulled us out of the great depression and through world war 2 is an insult to FDR.

[ucrdem]

22. Oh I imagine his support is collapsing like it collapsed in November.

Remember how that turned out? And if Obama thought world war was the ticket to economic recovery he could have had his pick, many times over. He doesn't.

[cali]

21. I hate to break this to you, but historians disagree

http://hnn.us/features/how-do-historians-rate-obama.html

http://valkayec.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/historians-rate-presidents-including-obama/

History, of course, will not forget President Obama. He has firmly cemented his place in American history by becoming the first black president and that is a historic achievement, as is winning a 2nd term under pretty dire economic conditions. But beyond that, it's unlikely as of now, that he'll be in the first tier of Presidents. He does have three more years to go however, and that could change.

[ucrdem]

23. Note the future tense "will" in the OP. nt

[Marr]

54. Ah, so you're basing that claim on events that haven't yet occurred.

Yes, very solid argument.

[ucrdem]

63. A lot have, like ACA and the recovery,

but I"m mainly thinking of the big picture which is hard for some here to keep in focus, but which I'm hoping will be clearer in retrospect.

[galileoreloaded]

50. Your mind

You've lost it.

[Prism]

16. This game did not go well when played after Prop 8

That said, President Obama is unfortunately a mediocre president. A Coolidge who just didn't amount to much, but hardly the worst of the lot.

I think he ran before he had the experience and grasp needed for the presidency. 2016 should've been his year.

Bit of an oh well at this point. And hey, I supported him in the primaries because he didnt seem to have the Washington baggage. It's been a painful learning process on why experience matters.

[JI7]

17. i think it was mostly in the South where Romney won such large percentages of white voters

but in some other states i think it was closer or OBama won the white vote. i'm pretty sure in places like the north east and west coast Obama won the white voters.

[cali]

30. he definitely won the white vote in my state

In Vermont the minority vote is about 2%. And he won big in Vermont. His margin of victory here was only exceeded by HI and DC.

[dawg]

20. It's very fair to give nonwhite voters the credit for sparing us from Mitt Romney.

Saving the world? That might be a little much.

But certainly they deserve credit for winning the election. (And that was a good thing.)

[Crepuscular]

27. Except

that equal credit should be given to the white voters who supported Obama, as without that support he would not have been elected. That would be fair.

[dawg]

29. Yes, but "whites" as a group mostly voted for Romney, so nonwhites were the deciding factor.

Of course, all of the whites who voted for Obama deserve credit, too. We couldn't have won without them either.

[Crepuscular]

36. Minorities were "a" deciding factor

not, "the" deciding factor. No more than the whites who voted for Obama, who by the way outnumbered the number of Minorities who voted for Obama, where "the" deciding factor.

If you have a quarter, 2 nickles, a dime and 6 pennies and the result is 51 cents, which of the coins was the deciding factor in reaching the goal of 51 cents? The answer is they all are, no individual coin was the "deciding" factor.

Voters who supported Obama should be thanked and receive credit. Anything past that statement is ignoring the contribution of some who were vital for his success.

[ucrdem]

39. I've seen a lot of pretzel logic, and that's pretzel logic. nt

[Crepuscular]

46. I don't think

that "logic" plays any role in your thought process. Simple question, do you understand that the different races do not make up equal proportions of the electorate?

[pampango]

26. If minorities had voted for Obama in the same percentage as whites, we would have a President Romney

Thank you indeed from this white guy.

[ucrdem]

33. Let me guess, you heard it in NPR.

From a statistician.

[pampango]

56. No. Was it on NPR? It's simple math. Romney got 59% of the white vote. If he had received 59% of

the Hispanic and Asian vote, he would have won.

I don't think anyone is denigrating the 41% of whites who voted for Obama. He could not have won without them. However, I don't mind giving credit to races, ethnicities, genders, states or any other grouping that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Their greater degree of support for him deserves kudos.

[upaloopa]

32. I feel especially thankful to the people who waited in lone

for hours to vote. But it took all of us to elect Obama and it is not right to devide us up like you do.

[ucrdem]

34. If it were up to white voters Obama would have lost both elections.

And the percentage of white voters supporting him declined from 43% in 2008 to 39% in 2012. Yes, every vote counts, but without the voters named in the OP Obama never would have made it to the White House.

[Crepuscular]

43. Still shaking my head.....

It was up to white voters to a great extent and they are one of the reasons that Obama won both elections. Not that it would ever happen but a Presidential candidate could win an election without a single Minority vote. However, a President could not win an election without getting at least 35% of the white vote. Now that will change in the future as minorities increase in their percentage of the electorate but that's the way it is right now.

[upaloopa]

48. Get off the white loathing guilt trip will you?

You can't lump all white voters in one bag just to suit your self loathing.

[East Coast Pirate]

52. I drove a long way to canvas for him.

You might want to look in the mirror when you're identifying racists.

[ucrdem]

53. No one is trying to diminish your or anyone's individual contribution.

I'm just giving group credit where it's due.

[dsc]

35. You left out lgbt and jews

Jews gave 69% while lgbt gave 76%. On lgbt, Obama tied the non lgbt vote.

[ucrdem]

38. Props to both groups but that's a different OP isn't it?

55% of women too I believe. But religion, gender, and LGBT are all in different groups of identifiers on the exit polls.

[dsc]

41. well we all equally contributed to that victory

so I think we all should have been properly thanked in your OP.

[ucrdem]

42. All who voted for Democratic or at least progressive candidates should be thanked, absolutely.

But that too is a slightly different OP, though I have no problem with it.

[bike man]

40. Maybe some of those folks have not been reading the news. Or this -->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3151188

[ucrdem]

45. Der Spiegel via FT and I don't see any numbers.

Everyone has an opinion, and they're entitled to theirs, if you follow.

[bike man]

49. Everyone does indeed have an opinion, and some don't agree with yours. Imagine that!

[ucrdem]

51. Of course, and I'm sharing mine in hopes you'll consider that we take a lot for granted.

And it doesn't hurt to point it out now and then.

[CakeGrrl]

44. Thanks to the SCOTUS gutting the VRA, 2014 and 2016 could be ugly.

We may very well get a reminder of what it's like when the GOP is truly back at the helm.

[ucrdem]

47. Yes that worries me a lot. In fact

what got me thinking about this is the realization that these are golden years, and we should savor what's left of them because they probably won't last.

[bluestate10]

60. Republican over-reach in states that party controls will make 2014 competitive

for democrats and may give democrats an overwhelming advantage in 2016 is Hillary Clinton is heading the ticket, and even a big advantage is Hillary isn't at the top of the ticket as long as democrats don't go far Left. Republicans had a good chance in 2014, but a do nothing US House and dramatic attacks on freedoms in states controlled by republicans have soured that party's chances in all but the absolute reddest states.

[Number23]

55. I'm sure this thread will go down well. On DU. In General Discussion.

[RainDog]

57. Obama won the largest share of the white vote since 1976

for Democrat, in a two-person presidential race.

Yet you left this out - even tho it's the first sentence in the first link you have here.

But that doesn't fit the race baiting in your post - which you have been doing here since you joined DU.

Where are those African-American voters living - the ones who voted for Obama?

The overwhelming number of African-Americans live in the south. Since we have an electoral college voting system, those votes count toward a presidential election when the states in which they are made have their electoral college votes assigned to one person or another.

So, who won those southern states?

Again, the reality is that voting populations of those states whose electoral votes went to Obama were made up of a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and whites. All were part of this win and the votes from whites were essential for the Democratic candidate in the last two elections... and in every election. It's not a "white vs. black" issue. It's a conservative vs. liberal issue.

A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites.

again, from your first link. So, Obama won more white votes among those who will be voting most often in future presidential elections - and more votes from these white voters than for any white candidate in 30 years.

...which is, again, something you leave out because you are race baiting.

Hispanics are 8% of the voting population.
Asian-Americans are 3.4% of the voting population
African-Americans are 12% of the voting population (I'm using census numbers that show an increase in the last election.)

So, less than 24% of all votes were cast by the group you talk about in your OP. The point is that elections are about coalitions of people, no matter their ethnicity. The reality is that white people voted for Obama more than any other Democratic president in the recent past. So, if this is about Obama - the reality is that white people voted him into office as much as any other racial or ethnic category, and more whites voted for him than voted for white candidates in the past.

Although blacks voted at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites nationally in 2012, this result was not uniform across the country. In the East North Central, East South Central, Middle Atlantic, and South Atlantic divisions, blacks voted at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites. In the Mountain and Pacific divisions, non-Hispanic whites voted at higher rates than blacks. In the New England, West North Central and West South Central divisions, voting rates for the two groups were not significantly different from each other.

So, in areas of the nation with large white populations, those states include many who voted for and carried the electoral college votes for Obama and the Democratic Party. It was, again, a coalition of voters, across many different categories.

However, the population in this nation that is white and Republican-voting is also the population that considers itself strongly religious.

The categories that lost votes from Obama to Romney were among white Protestant and Catholic voters. But, overwhelmingly, white protestants vote for Republicans. No matter who the Democratic nominee may be. This has been the case since the 1980s.

You could've broken this down in other ways... more people who hold no strong religious belief voted for Obama than voted for Romney or McCain.

The religiously unaffiliated voted 75% for Obama in 2008 and 70% in 2012. This vote for Obama is larger than votes for Gore or Kerry.

This demographic is 20% of the adult population, and growing. This vote is greater than or equal to than any two of the three categories you selected, and nearly equal to all them, combined.

So, those with religious affiliations, other than African-Americans, match your totals for "voting while white." Maybe the problem is certain religion beliefs, as far as voting for any Democrat, since this voting pattern holds no matter who the Democrats run because the religious right is ideologically opposed to those issues that constitute the core of the Democratic platform coalition among black, Latino, Asian-American, white, male, female, straight, gay, religious or non-religious, environmentalist, believer in the public good...

Surprise! (or not, actually) Those same white protestant voters oppose women's rights, gblt rights, equal rights and opportunities for minorities, environmental regulations, business regulation, social safety net upholding...

These same percentages for religious voters will hold true when or if Hillary Clinton runs for president. They will have held true since before she ran, as well, just as they do now, with President Obama.

The good news in all this is that the white religious voter is older and dying off. Younger people continue to disassociate themselves with religion. It seems an effective "southern strategy" for Democrats would be to form coalitions of non-religious voters, of all races, to encourage their other non-religious friends to vote and to become involved in the political process. In the south, such a coalition could help with voter registration and making sure people in their states have valid voter i.d.s.

But this would be inclusive, rather than divisive, so obviously it's not pertinent to your OP.

[ucrdem]

58. Yes, in 2008. But white support forObama dropped from 43%in 2008 to 39% in 2012.

That's from WaPo, as reflected on the chart below, but I've seen the same poll numbers elsewhere:



Incidentally, the first link in the OP goes to a Nov. 5, 2008 Politico article discussing the 2008 election, but the quotation is from a Nov. 7, 2012 CS Monitor article describing the 2012 exit poll data. I must have posted the wrong link, sorry to confuse the issue further, but here's the correct link:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1107/Election-results-2012-Who-won-it-for-Obama-video

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that white voters proved themselves are easily distracted and less loyal to Obama in his reelection than they were to Clinion in his. And even in 2008, Obama got only as much of the white vote as Clinton did in 1996, 43%. And I know Florida and Virgina voted blue in 2012, good on 'em, but I don't think it was white voters in those states who pushed Obama over, and the rest of the south all went red:

[RainDog]

64. The majority of his total vote came from white voters.

the truth is that voting patterns for whites indicate that race was not the reason for the decline in votes among whites. religion was the reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/president-obama-and-the-white-vote-no-problem/

...while Obama did lose white voters by 20 points to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (the widest losing margin for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1984) he still won a clear popular vote victory — with a majority of his total vote nationwide coming from white voters.

...Just one in every ten Republican voters were non-white. That is the story of the 2012 election.

The reality is that this white-vote loss was concentrated among white Protestants and Catholics, as noted in links. It seems that religion, rather than race, was the factor for the loss of white voters.

You and I both know there's a vast difference between white and black Protestant churches and voters. There's an entire history there. So, those you want to accuse of being "disloyal" are those who hold religious beliefs that tend to make up the segment of the white voting public who vote for Republicans anyway, no matter the Democratic candidate.

I can't see the value in this unless you are posting this here to race bait and to attempt to apply these voting categories to people here with whom you disagree.

I doubt that very many, if any, of those white Protestant voters will be turning out for Hillary, either, even if she does have the last name of Clinton.

You should look at economic issues. What was happening in the economy during Clinton's second term, versus 2012?

You should look at the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton over a sex scandal. How many people voted AGAINST this attack by Republicans?

And, you should look at Romney, who claims to have certain religious beliefs, compared to McCain/Palin, who... well, who knows what they believe. Romney/Ryan, even tho Ryan is batshit nutty, was a more palatable ticket than McCain and Palin. She was a train wreck.

Maybe you're just a "glass half empty" kind of person.

Maybe you just want to point out negatives, instead of noting that within the span of Coretta King's lifetime, a majority made up of white people and every other ethnic category in this nation voted to elect an African-American president.

If you simply look at race, without considering factors within society, who the candidate on the other ticket was, etc... what purpose are you serving other than to try to create divisions among a strong coalition of people of various ethnicities?

[ucrdem]

65. Yes, I'm simply looking at one question on the exit polls, because it's telling.

Sure there are loads of other considerations, but that's the one I'm focusing on to support the claim I made in the thread title, and I believe the information presented in the OP does. And apart outright denials and several attempts to change the subject, or to minimize its importance, I don't believe anyone has demonstrated otherwise. It is what it is.

[RainDog]

68. So, since the evidence is that white religious voters went for Romney

you're talking about all white voters as somehow disloyal to Obama?

okay.

in other words, you don't care about any reasons for this pattern. you only want to try to make a blanket statement that doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of people who did vote for Obama.

this means your subject is, as I said, race baiting.

[ucrdem]

69. Religion is not the identifier I'm focusing on, no. nt

[RainDog]

70. because you don't want to present accurate information

because you're race baiting.

the subset of white voters that moved to Romney/Ryan include white Catholics who voted for Ryan because he's a white Catholic. But it's not about FACTS to you.

When you first started posting here, I wondered if you were a troll because of the amount of race baiting you were doing.

I still wonder.

[ucrdem]

71. For the fourth time, the OP has nothing to do with religion.

Your replies are also tedious and incoherent, your tone is annoying, and you're starting to bore me.

Apart from that, I like you too.

[RainDog]

72. actually, my posts are telling the truth

and that's what you dislike.

I put you on ignore when I saw this post, then took you off, just to reply.

because I don't think such race baiting should pass here on DU without comment.

I do like the way you can't create an honest response, tho.

That does indicate you know what you're doing and you are doing so intentionally.

have a great day!

enjoy your lying race baiting posts!

[ucrdem]

73. Discussing race in electoral politics is not race baiting.

At least get that straight.

[RainDog]

74. No. Discussing race dishonestly is race baiting

and that's what you're doing.

as my first response here, and subsequent ones, indicated, more white people supported Obama than any Democratic candidate in decades.

Decades.

But you choose to ignore that because the point of your post is not about noting the massive support for Obama among white voters.

You use the most superficial metric possible and try to claim this makes a statement about white voters regarding Obama.

that's why you are race baiting.

[ucrdem]

75. Your claims simply aren't true. In 2008 Obama got what Bill got in 1996 and in 2012 he got 4% less.

End of story. Oh one more point: the reason I didn't include the Politico piece and didn't intend to include the link is because I felt the story and the lead you initially quoted, which you've evidently built your whole ridiculous rant around, are disingenuous.

[RainDog]

76. LOL

when the facts don't fit your preconceived objective, ignore them.

but you did, in fact, include the politico piece and selectively chose what to emphasize from that piece.

The figures from politico come from the AP.

Then after someone points out what you're doing, you resort to insults.

sucks to be someone who is engaging in race baiting on a site for Democrats.

[ucrdem]

77. NOTHING in my OP is from Politico. The link is an error. But your entire rant is

is based on an obviously incorrect link to a RW source that I rejected as misleading, had no intention of using, and did not quote, summarize or paraphrase.



That's really rich. Ah, the joys of summer. Here have a drink and forget about it.

[RainDog]

80. The Washington Post is a right wing source?

who knew.

because, yes, I noted the politico link, but I also noted The Washington Post, which stated:

Obama’s 39 percent showing among white voters matched the percentage that Bill Clinton received in 1992 — albeit it in a competitive three-way race — and exceeded the percentage of the white vote earned by Walter Mondale in 1984, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George McGovern in 1972.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/president-obama-and-the-white-vote-no-problem/

I also noted voter information from these sources:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

edit to add - and I looked at census data on the numbers of voters for various ethnic groups. I'll provide links but you can go to gallup and pew yourself, right?

really rich. you're making a claim that is yet another lie!

[ucrdem]

82. Doesn't change a thing and there's no lie except in your own mind.

Look, you thought you found a gotcha but the gotcha got you. It happens. I've been trying tell you that since your first rant. Time to log off eh? Better luck tomorrow.

[RainDog]

83. no. you're wrong

I was telling the truth that the loss of white voters stems from religious issues.

you think you can bullshit your way out of this but you can't.

maybe you should just give up on lying and race baiting. that would be a smart tactic.

[ucrdem]

85. Dude. This is not about religion.

Start your own thread if you want to talk about religion. It's an interesting subject and I promise to contribute.

Okay?

[RainDog]

88. Dude

I'm a woman.

Just one more thing you're wrong about with your post.

Have a nice rest of your life.

[polly7]

59. While I'm very glad Obama won over Romney,

wtf are you talking about ... save the world!??

[ucrdem]

61. The short answer is Iran and climate change.

But there are many other initiatives the BO administration is making progress on that have made and will make life immeasurably better in the US and abroad, with certain notable exceptions, mainly in MENA. In other words the world is a big place with more going on in it than Wikileaks and MMJ.

[polly7]

66. uh huh.

It sure is a big place. With many, many sovereign nations with their own governments, economies, resources, military, trading partners and like .... everything!

Iran? What's Iran done to the world lately that we all need saving from it?

Climate change? I'm not aware of any huge developments there either that Obama's implemented to save the rest of the world, maybe you could elaborate.

[RZM]

62. I'm pretty sure the world could endure the Romneypocalypse

Saving the world is a bit much.

[ucrdem]

67. Im not so sanguine.

Romeny was itching to bomb Iran and we've seen what 8+ years of Buchcalypse did to Iraq, and (in my opinion) by extension of policies he put in place, to Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

[Major Hogwash]

78. Absolutely!!! Great thread!

I'm glad that you brought this up so near to the 4th of July this year.
Because so many white folks here in Idaho think they "own" the 4th of July.

[ucrdem]

86. Thank you

p.s. have a great 4th and stay safe!

[mick063]

79. As an old white man

I am extremely grateful to the "dark skinned" people that have proven to be my last hope in giving my grandchildren a decent and good nation to live in.

Twenty years ago, I never would have believed that you could be the saviors for my family, or that I would feel more politically, socially connected to you, than many of those within my own demographic.

The "browning" of America may be what ultimately saves America.

With heart felt sincerity.

Thank you very, very much.

[ucrdem]

87. I basically feel the same way.

Thanks for expressing it so clearly!

[alp227]

81. I'm an Asian-American who voted for Obama in 2012 in my first presidential election where I voted,

but I'd like to say: STOP THIS CONDESCENDING BULLSHIT. Yes i know Obama = the lesser of 2 evils last year. But Re-electing Obama did NOT save the world. Look at the Edward Snowden/NSA mess right now. Or the student loan rate. Drone strikes. Obama is NOT FDR or JFK sadly.

[ucrdem]

84. I think you're letting yourself get distracted.

The honest advice I'd offer is this: I recommend checking ProSense's threads every day because as I've mentioned before I can think of no better way of filtering the crap from the reality, at least until you get the hang of it, and Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden, GG and the rest of that parade are not reality.

[Cha]

89. I'm thanking them right f****** now! Started the night of the election..

All those sweethearts standing in line for hOUrS and Hours!

[bravenak]

90. Thank you for standing out in the cold to cast your vote.

I still love Obama.