HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Obama performance with wh...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 06:32 PM

Obama performance with white voters on par with other Democrats

xpanding on our election autopsy report in First Thoughts this morning about the white vote, since 1976, Democrats have never won white voters. Jimmy Carter, a Southerner, came the closest in 1976, winning 48% of it.
Since then, Democrats have ranged from 34% (Walter Mondale in 1984) to 44% (Bill Clinton in 1996).
Obama, in his first election, won 43% of the white vote, the second-highest number for a Democrat since Carter. His 39% in 2012 puts him further down the list of Democrats in the last 10 elections, but only slightly below the average 40.6% share for Democrats through the years.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/19/15282553-obama-performance-with-white-voters-on-par-with-other-democrats?lite

Curious?

11 replies, 1234 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama performance with white voters on par with other Democrats (Original post)
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2012 OP
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #1
John2 Nov 2012 #2
EmeraldCityGrl Nov 2012 #3
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2012 #4
EmeraldCityGrl Nov 2012 #5
former9thward Nov 2012 #10
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #11
Awsi Dooger Nov 2012 #6
Midwestern Democrat Nov 2012 #7
SpartanDem Nov 2012 #8
Robbins Nov 2012 #9

Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 07:23 PM

1. Obama got the same % of white voters as Clinton in 1992.



His 39% was better than Mondale '84, Carter '80, and was nearly as good as Dukakis '88. And as I pointed out in another thread from a while back, this isn't a white voter problem, it is a southern white voter problem. Obama ran very well among white voters everywhere else.



People keep telling me the GOP stranglehold of the south isn't about race. And the statistics keep saying otherwise.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:04 PM

2. I live

 

in the South and I think it is more about race in the South. You do have racism in other regions but not as much in the Deep South. This is where I point to the Southern Strategy of the GOP and the take over of the Republican Party by former Southern Dixiecrats. Some stayed in the Democratic Party like the late senator of West Virginia but most moved into the Republican Party like Strom Thurmond ( South Carolina) and Jessie Helms ( North Carolina).

When Strom Thurmond broke from the Democratic Party, He formed the State's Rights Party and did not immediately move into the Republican Party. That was the Party which joined with Northern and other Democrats outside the South to pass the Civil Rights Bill. What people don't state is Republicans in Southern States also voted with Southern Dixiecrats, so that point gets lost in the research. The opposition against Civil Rights was mostly a Southern thing.

Now you see that in voting habits. The further you go South, you see this more entrenched among white voters. The Republican Party might have been Pro Business more so than State's Rights but their main mantra now is State's Rights. It is much more easier to get away with racial discrimination if it was left up to individual states. This is why they hate the Federal Government more so in the South. This indicates, they are still fighting the Civil War. The periods after the Civil War were Reconstruction , Jim Crow and then the Civil Rights movement. If you notice, in every one of those Stages, The Federal Government had to force their will in the South. The South has always resisted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:27 PM

3. Do you see a significant or minor population

change as those from the north relocate to the south hoping for
a lower cost of living, including cheaper home prices etc. I've
wondered if that's not the reason we see FL. as a light blue,
purple state. I've known a few people that have relocated to
FL. for the weather, or a job transfer and they take their Liberal
politics with them.

I suppose it depends on which state you live in. No one is rushing
to get to AR. or MS. but in general what is your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EmeraldCityGrl (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:11 PM

4. I wonder how many northerners are moving south?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:54 PM

5. I'd need to do some checking on the last census.

I remember a few years ago there were news stories about people relocating
to a few select areas. If I find anything concrete I'll post on it.

Du'ers living in the South might have some thoughts on the possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:23 PM

10. I guess it depends on what you mean by "ran very well among white voters".

Obama only won the white vote in a handful of states all in New England and Hawaii. I define "doing well" as winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:38 PM

11. If tha'ts the case than no Democratic president has done well since 1964.



1964 was the last time a Democrat carried the white vote in a Presidential election.


Hmmm... what social movement was taking place that would have turned off so many white voters between 1964 and 1968?


Since then, even when we ran whites from the south (Gore, Carter, Clinton) none of them got to 50%.

Ironically, the best was Carter (48% in 1976).

Clinton, despite being about as southern as you can get, got just 39% of the white vote in 1992 and 44% in 1996. And even for him, the traditional deep south was a major struggle among white voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:52 PM

6. Hardly on par with Clinton

Clinton lost the white vote by 2% each time, while running in a 3-way race.

Obama lost that block by 12% and 20%.

Clinton running under these demographics would win by scary margins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Awsi Dooger (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:11 AM

7. Clinton would have done better than Obama, but Clinton would not do nearly as well in the South

today as he did in '92 - the South is far more hostile to the Democratic Party today than it was then. Democrats still held a majority of elected offices in the South in '92 - by 2000, when Gore ran, it was vividly clear that the Democratic Party was heading towards extinction in the South.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:15 PM

8. The difference is Obama won with a percentage, that wasn't possible in the past

6. Dukakis - 40
7. Clinton(1992) 39
7. Obama (2012) 39
9. Carter (1980) 36
10. Mondale 34

If you look at the lowest totals, they all lost except Clinton,who was in three way race. And he probably would've lost if Perot wasn't running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:50 PM

9. Wrong

You keep buying Into GOP myth that Perot elected Clinton.That If when he dropped out In july of 1992 If he wouldn't have jumped
back In September that Bush would have If a Myth.

After Republican convention Clinton still led Bush In Polls.

The best Bush ever did In debates that year was draw In final debate.Perot was seen as winning first one.And Clinton won secod
town hall debate(First time ever and town hall wa ssomething CLinton pushed for) people didn't want to hear Bush's negative
character attacks like questioning Clinton's patroitism and his antivietnam protests.When Bush was caught looking at his watch.The election was over.

40 Percent of Perot voters said they wouldn't have voted If Perot wasn't running.the remaining 60 percent were split nearly
equal with Clinton and Bush with slighty more saying they would have voted for CLinton If Perot wasn't running.

GOP for years tried to delegitmaze Clinton by using first he didn't get 50 percent or more of popular vote and then trying to say
Perot just took Bush's votes from him.Even Perot himself said a large part of his voters would have stayed home and from rest who
would have voted slightly more would have voted for Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread