======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


On 5/19/2010 8:32 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> The shift -
> preceding  the current political realignment underway and the indispensable
> condition  making political realignment possible was that of a MASSIVE break 
> away
> section  of Anglo working class voters from the Republican party. The social
> process  setting events in motion are the deep and accelerating changes
> taking place in  the economy.

That's not what happened in the 2008 elections. McCain got 55% of the 
white vote in 2008. This is a typical Republican result: for example, 
Bush got 54% of the white vote in 2000, when the popular vote was almost 
tied. Given that McCain lost by 7 percentage points, that he even 
INCREASED Republican white support is striking.

It is even more striking because Republicans lost ground among the 
richest Americans who are nearly all white. This of necessity means 
there MUST have been an increase in Republican support among the 
lower-income whites to compensate.

He won both among lower-income whites --those making less than $50,000, 
with a 4 percentage point advantage) and among whites making more than 
that by 13 percentage points.

(All these comparisons are based on exit polls carried out on behalf of 
the major network news divisions, the cable news channels and the AP, 
and my own computations based on those and the popular vote.)

What was different in 2008 mostly was not which way different 
demographic segments voted but who voted. Whites were 77% of the 
electorate in 2004 and 74% in 2008, whereas Blacks were 11% of the 
electorate in 2004 and 13% in 2008. Latinos were 8% in 2004 and 9% in 
2008. Young people went from 18% to 22%.

The big shifts in voter preference were among Latinos, where the 
Democrat lead went from 9 percent in 2004 to 36 (!) in 2008, and among 
young people, where a 9 percent Democrat lead in 2004 became a 34-point 
2008 lead. Similarly, among Asians the Democrat lead went from 12 
percentage points to 27 points.

The Black Republican vote went from 11% (Bush) to 4% (McCain), in other 
words, not only did many more Blacks vote, roughly two-and-a-half 
million, but McCain lost most of Bush's Black vote.

I don't have access to the cross-tabulations to break down subgroups 
right now, but my memory is that one big change in the youth vote was in 
its ethnic composition:  there were a significantly higher percentage of 
Blacks and Latinos in that demographic in 2008 than in 2004.

As is normal, lower-income groups favored the Democrat more strongly and 
as income increases, so does Republican support. Kerry had an 11 point 
lead on those making less than $50,000 in 2004 and Bush a 13 point lead 
on those over $50K. Obama increased the lead among the lower income 
group to 22% and tied Bush at 49% for those making over $50K.

This means Obama gained 11 points among the lower income group and 13 
among the higher. Taking into account 4 year's inflation, which is 
reflected in a drop of the lower income group from 45% of the voters to 
38% 4 years later, the Democrat shift was in fact higher among higher 
income groups than among the lower.

So, among people making $100,000 or more, Bush had a 17-percent lead 
that Obama completely erased. Among those making under $100,000, Obama 
increased the Democrat advantage from one point to 8.

The most striking  figure of all is that among those making more than 
$200,000, Bush had a 28 point advantage over Kerry. In this same group, 
Obama bested McCain by 6%. That's a 34-point swing.

To make the demographics even more comparable, contrast those making 
over $150k in 2004 (7% of the voters) with those making over $200K in 
2008 (6% of the voters).  Obama turned a 21 point GOP advantage in 2004 
into a 6 point Democrat advantage.

In other words, among those most privileged layers closest to the ruling 
class there was a swing to the Democrats comparable to the one among 
Latinos and Asians.

Finally, to put some vote numbers behind all this: Obama won by 8.5 
million votes. Of those, the INCREASE in Black votes from what Kerry got 
was 4.5 million and among Latinos 2.8 million. These are very rough 
back-of-the-envelope estimates but they show the BIG MAJORITY of Obama's 
winning margin came from Blacks and Latinos.

BOTTOM LINE: Obama's victory was due to a big increase in Black and 
Latino turnout and a disproportionately greater swing to the Democrats 
among Latinos and Asians, young people, and the very rich.

The idea that white, working class voters carried out a "MASSIVE break 
away" from the Republicans is contradicted by the evidence.

Joaquín

(Full disclosure: I've worked analyzing exit polls in elections for news 
organizations for a couple of decades).







________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to