Law School Discussion

POTUS

Re: POTUS
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2015, 10:49:10 PM »
Bill wasn't black, and Hillary asking Obama about it and Obama joking about him dancing...................abo ut sums it up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuQgWtRIoNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNH-KiTqskM

and the "um" and "without going into" prove my point. Its kneejerk programed into the brain. "shhh, shutup, we're only supposed to be surrounded by it, not acknowledge it surrounding us.....SSSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2015, 08:12:38 AM »
"TOKENS are what does it. Obama had even Colon Powell (a die hard Republican) vote for him. It was a skin issue."

Oh, stop, Please. You are revealing far too much about yourself (and you probably don't want to).

Let's try some numbers- Obama's share of the black vote in 2012: 93%.
Al Gore's share of the black vote in 2000: Either 90% or 92% (depending on how it was measured).

....so, there it is.

Reagan got 47% of the women in 1980, and then, when there was a woman on the ticket against him in 1984 (look it up), he got... 58%.

Partisan affiliation trumps race and gender. Or, if you'd prefer, race and (to a lesser extent) gender correlate with partisan affiliation.

And Hillary Clinton will get between 90-95% of the black vote in 2016. And between 53-58% of the female vote (Obama received 55 and 56%).


Re: POTUS
« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2015, 08:49:23 AM »
It is worth noting, however, that black voter turnout in 2008 was up by 2 million. I think it's safe to say that this was due to the fact that a black candidate was running and the Democrats were able to build on that fact.

Given that the total number of voters was something like 130 million this may seem small, but it made the difference in states like North Carolina. 

Pie may have put it, er, a bit bluntly, but people who have been denied participation in the system for a long time are bound to get excited when they feel a connection to the candidate. All those Irish Catholics who voted for Eisenhower lined up around the block to vote for JFK, then voted for Nixon in '68.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2015, 09:06:21 AM »
Voter turnout in 2008 : 57.1% of the voting population.
In 2004: 55.7% of the voting population.

The story isn't the increase in black (and minority) turnout- it's the decrease of white turnout.
Percentages-
White-
2004: 67.2%
2008:  60.0%

Black-
2004: 60.0%
2008: 64.7%

Hispanic-
2004: 47.2%
2008: 49.9%

Asian-
2004: 44.2%
2008: 47.6%

While you could make the argument that this was due to a black candidate (the TOKEN argument), I think it is inarguable that the overall effort that Obama put into the GOTV efforts (which has been well documented) at the local level is the leading indicator for the across-the-board turnout increases in the key democratic constituencies. If you recall, it was difficult to not run into people that were helping you get to the polls.

Also, your "just so" memory of the Catholic vote isn't correct. While the statistics show that Kennedy did overperform in the Catholic vote, it is also true that the Catholics voted against Eisenhower, voted against Nixon in '68, split the vote in '72, voted for Carter in '76, split the vote in '80, and, if you look at history since FDR, have either split the vote (basically) or voted Democratic in every election except for 1984.


Re: POTUS
« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2015, 10:06:36 AM »
Yes, a decrease in white voters PLUS an increase in minority voters combined to work in Obama's favor.

I wouldn't say that it's merely an argument based on abstract tokenism, however. The Democratic campaign actively sought to make full use of the excitement generated by the first black candidate, and it worked. They gained votes with black, Hispanic, Asian, and young (18-24) voters. I mean, do you honestly think that the increase in black voters was unrelated to Obama's status?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html

 

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2015, 10:20:20 AM »
" I mean, do you honestly think that the increase in black voters was unrelated to Obama's status?"

cf.

"They gained votes with black, Hispanic, Asian, and young (18-24) voters."

The Obama campaign invested heavily in GOTV efforts by building both technology and local offices in an unprecedented fashion (and this built on his earlier, and canny, success in gaming the system in the Democratic primaries). This allowed them to narrow-target to both "remind" people to go to the polls, and to get people registered to vote. This has been well documented. The *across-the-board* increases not only are evidence of this, but specifically argue against the *TOKEN* point you are making- there is no particular reason that young, Asian, or Hispanic voters would be particularly amenable to a black candidate. While I don't disagree that there was some effect at the margins, this "just so" story does a great disservice to what was, in effect, a GOTV revolution that the GOP is still trying to catch up to (and the Dem effort was, in effect, a tech response to the GOP effort that arose due to Rove in 2000 and was incredibly successful).

Shorter version- it is borderline insulting to attribute the GOTV effort of the Obama campaign to "more black people showed up because Obama was black." The more correct statement is that Obama increased the overall electorate, which greatly helped him (Democrats have an advantage when the electoral base in increased), but his actual percentage of the black vote wasn't that superior compared to an "average" candidate like Al Gore. Admittedly, it's hard to improve on 92%. Finally, attributing these types of identifications to voters when the evidence overwhelmingly shows that voters are partisan first ignores what we are seeing. Just like the great debate about the "independents," who, as we saw before, are almost are partisans who are labeling themselves independents.

I hate to keep getting back to actualities, but this is part of the annoying things about out discourse in this country. We like to tell ourselves these stories about politics, most of which just aren't true. I guess it makes it more interesting, and more enjoyable for people to follow.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2015, 10:45:22 AM »
"In 2008 we obviously had a historic candidacy", said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Center. "That's certainly a plausible explanation for the spike in African American turnout."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

It is not insulting to acknowledge that people who have been marginalized would find renewed interest when the system finally produces a candidate who they believe can sympathize with their particular issues. This isn't especially difficult to understand, nor controversial, nor does it ignore other contributing factors.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard time grasping it. The Pew Center gets it, the Democrats get it, maybe one day even the Republicans will get it.   

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2015, 11:10:00 AM »
"I'm not sure why you have such a hard time grasping it. The Pew Center gets it, the Democrats get it, maybe one day even the Republicans will get it. "

Yes, the Pew Center presents a theory. Of course, this doesn't explain why other groups also so increased turnout. Or why a particular group so greatly decreased turnout. The Pew Center (and others) are precisely what I am criticizing- the "just so" stories that are *belied* by the evidence. Obama grew the electorate among all the categories that were key to his vitory- even Hispanics, a group that, notably, the GOP had previously courted (oops).

And then you elided his next statement- " The question was, Would other minorities vote for this minority? Not only did he get a big vote, but he got a big turnout."

Now, what could account for that? The famous Asian/Hispanic/Black TOKENISM? Or perhaps, there is an underlying causative variable at work? Just maybe? Something with a little deeper explanatory power?

This is why we can't have nice things. Because people prefer hot air to statistics. As best put by Nate Silve, what happened in 2008 is - "The 2008 election was an anomaly. A Democratic wave nationally caused by a deeply unpopular Republican in the White House and a financial crisis as well as a strong get-out-the-vote effort by the Obama campaign[.]"

The economy. The (lingering) incumbent. And a dash of GOTV.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2015, 11:26:13 AM »
Obama appointed Julian Castro, the Mayor of San Antonio, to a Cabinet position last year. This was widely viewed as a move to help prepare Castro for national office. Now, Castro is highly likely to be chosen as Hillary Clinton's VP. The idea being touted by Henry Cisneros and many others is that a Latino candidate will energize Latino voters. The Clinton campaign is very warm to this lobbying effort.

I assume you believe the campaign is mistaken in this assumption?

If so, then I commend you for having greater political insight than either the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign, that's very impressive. 

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2015, 11:40:53 AM »
.... again, your "received wisdom" and "just so" stories aren't cutting it.

What, do you think that if Marco Rubio gets the nomination, that he will magically win the "Hispanic" vote? Because people have said that?

Because the hot air classes that chatter, without any basis, don't understand that "Hispanic" (or Latin/o/a) isn't monolithic, right? I mean, we'd be offended if someone said that we're putting a white person on the ballot to get the white vote, wouldn't we? And that the Cubans in Miami have a very different interest than the Dominicans in Orlando than the Puerto Ricans in New York than the Mexicans in Los Angeles? Just for starters?

Or that policies (specifically, the GOP hostility toward even legal immigration) won't matter just a tad?

No, I'm not surprised that Castro was moved to the cabinet- not from some weird maneuvering, but because the Democratic bench is weak (due to the 2010 census and lack of prominent state-level politicians), and because Castro doesn't have much room, right now, to move upwards in Texas. I would be neither surprised nor unsurprised if he was on the ticket, but-
Bentsen didn't carry Texas.
Ryan didn't carry his home state.
Ferraro didn't help... at all... with the woman's vote.
H.W. Bush wasn't selected to win Texas- that was in the bag, and he wasn't really a "Texas" guy.
Kemp wasn't selected to win NY, and there was never any hope of winning it.
The last 16 years of VPs were not chosen for their electoral chances (both Biden and Cheney came from safe states with no impact on the election), because people have gradually realized that VP choices really don't matter.

Arguably, the last VP selection to matter was LBJ... and that choice was kind of sui generis (and it wasn't for Texas- it was to keep the entire South... this was the whole Dixiecrat thing, remember).

So... do I believe that Castro supporters are trying to float a trial balloon for gullible people to raise their guy's profile? Sure. Will I pay any attention to it whatsoever? Nope.