In response to:

Is Demography Destiny?

organizingmom Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 9:34 AM
Being a self-proclaimed political junkie that has a severe case of the “post-election blues”, these blues are getting worse as both political parties explain away the reasons the Republicans lost and what we must do differently next time. In my opinion, none of them are right, and they all refuse to address the real issue for fear of being called a “racist”. Obama was elected and re-elected because the color of his skin is BLACK. There.....I said it! If you haven’t stopped reading this yet, let me explain.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:02 AM
I find it humorous that Republicans claim that Obama's election, itself, proves that Americans did not vote against the President for his skin color, while simultaneously proving that Americans did vote in favor of him on the basis of his skin color.

Unfortunately, statistics don't seem to bear that out... While 95% of the African-American community went for Obama, that isn't a much higher margin than the split between Democrats and Republicans in previous elections. Additionally, we're talking about maybe a 10% bump in a group that forms around 10% of the electorate (and that's being generous), so the impact on the overall election is less than 1%. Not exactly something that turns the tide.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:06 AM
And if you compare that with the senior vote, a bloc that generally breaks for Democrats almost 2 to 1, you see that Obama has had great difficulty with the white senior vote --a voting trend that indicates a generational divide regarding his fitness to be President. Now, one might argue that Democratic spending policies threaten the insolvency of Medicaid and Social Security, but that argument has never gained traction in the senior community enough to sway the electorate over to the Republican side, so the fact that it finds such resonance now is telling.

The best evidence that we'll have of exactly how Obama's skin color affected votes will be after the Dems run another white candidate, and we see what groups return after Obama is gone.
curmudgeon10 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 10:42 AM
you totally misunderstand. it was expected that blacks would vote overwhelmingly for a candidate who wishes to destroy america. they usually do. the racial difference was white voters, some of whom voted for the black candidate because he was black, when they might have voted against the destroy america candidate if he was any other skin tone. we expected blacks and white liberals to vote against the survival of our nation. what is shocking is the number of white nonliberals who voted against the survival of our nation, just to prove that they are not racist. what they actually proved is that they are indeed racist, and that they are suicidal.
Roy323 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 1:00 AM
wt- 'a voting trend that indicates a generational divide regarding his fitness to be President"-Do you really believe that? WELL SO DO I (I'm an old white geezer who also had some similar tribulations regarding to John Kerry).

Some media pundits see in the growing proportion of non-white groups in the population a growing opposition to the Republican Party that will sooner or later make it virtually impossible for Republicans to win presidential elections or even to control either house of Congress. But is demography destiny?

Conventional wisdom in the Republican establishment is that what the GOP needs to do, in order to win black votes or Hispanic votes, is to craft policies specifically targeting these groups. In other words, Republicans need to become more like Democrats.

Whether in a racial context or in other contexts, the...