Non-Voters Who Decided The 2016 Election

The are two persistent myths about the 2016 presidential election.  The first is that economic anxiety cause whites to vote for Trump. Study after study has shown the real motivation was racial.  Fears of loss of white privilege and a false narrative of "losing one's country" were what really carried the day for Trump. The second myth is that more votes went to Trump than had historically should have been the case.  That myth falls apart when one looks at the shocking number of Americans who failed to vote.  The black vote turn out was significantly down without a black presidential candidate with the result that blacks now have the most racist and anti-minority occupant of the White House in numerous decades. Add to this the Bernie Sanders crowd of "purist" who either staid home or voted for the likes of Jill Stein, a woman also seemingly in cahoots with Vladimir Putin. The result, of course is a White House that is the antithesis of everything Sanders supporters claim to uphold.  Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What's frightening with the Sanders crowd is that they appear to remain just as peevish and place far left ideology over winning elections.  Trump and Putin must both be smiling.  A piece in Forbes lays out how it was those who staid home and failed to do their civic duty and vote are the ones ultimately responsible for the Trump/Pence regime. Politics is about WINNING and selected at times the lesser evil.  Staying home is NEVER an acceptable option. To say that I hold such individuals in contempt is an understatement.  Here are article excerpts: 

An astonishing spectacle of the election aftermath is the false account of why Trump won. The accepted wisdom is that Trump succeeded in awakening a popular movement of anger and frustration among white, blue-collar, less educated, mostly male, voters, particularly in non-urban areas. Trump promised them jobs, safe borders, and dignity, and they responded by turning out in masses at his pre-election rallies and eventually at the ballots, carrying him to victory.

This story is mostly wrong. Trump did not win because he was more attractive to this base of white voters. He won because Hillary Clinton was less attractive to the traditional Democratic base of urban, minorities, and more educated voters. This is a profound fact, because Democratic voters were so extraordinarily repelled by Trump that they were supposed to have the extra motivation to turn out. Running against Trump, any Democratic candidate should have ridden a wave of anti-Trump sentiment among these voters. 

The story of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, then, is not the Trump Movement erupting in the ballots, nor the fable that some “Reagan Democrats” flipped again from Obama to Trump. The story is altogether different, and very simple: the Democratic base did not turn out to vote as it did for Obama. Those sure-Democrats who stayed home handed the election to Trump.

Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. Mote than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton! They did not become Trump voters . . . . If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. 

This pattern is national. Clinton’s black voter turnout dropped more than 11 percent compared to 2012. The support for Clinton among active black voters was still exceedingly high (87 percent, versus 93 percent for Obama), but the big difference was the turnout. Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton. According to one plausible calculation, if in North Carolina blacks had turned out for Clinton as they had for Obama, she would have won the state. 

Thanks to these lazy, irresponsible or peevishness in the case of Sanders supporters, America is enduring a national nightmare. Those too lazy or irrational to vote for Clinton need to be held accountable and Democrats must redouble turnout efforts in the lead up to November, 2018.  So too must evangelicals who swarmed to Trump and confirmed what I have long known: they are utter hypocrites and morally bankrupt notwithstanding all of the feigned piety and hypocrisy filled sanctimonious posturing.

CMI Poll: 90% of Gays & Lesbians Vote for Barack Obama

A new Community Marketing Inc. poll indicates that LGBT Americans voted for Barack Obama at perhaps the highest rate ever received by a presidential candidate.  Not, of course, that Mitt Romney and the GOP party platform hadn't given a huge incentive to do so.  Here are some of the poll findings:

The Community Marketing & Insights (CMI) pre-election poll showed that 90% of gay men and lesbians voted for Barack Obama. . . . . LGBTs represent an estimated 5% of United States voters and an overwhelming majority supported the coalition that produced Barack Obama’s victory.

90% support for Obama was seen in all Battleground States. The LGBT percentage was just below the level that Obama received from the African American community.

Demonstrating the importance of the election, 95% of LGBTs indicated that they would vote in the election and 41% indicated that the had already voted before election day.

Final data indicated that 90% supported Barack Obama, 6% for Mitt Romney and 4% a third party candidate.   41% of gays and lesbians gave money to the Obama campaign.

 Given the closeness of some of the results, LGBT voters clearly were important to Obama's victory.  These finding also ought to show GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans that their organizations are increasingly a joke in the face of the radical anti-gay agenda of today's Republican party. 

Voter Intensity and 2012

From what we've seen so far, the intensity of the Christian extremists elements of the electorate is running high. If that continues to November, 2012, and the Republicans nominate a wing nut, it will translate to a high turnout of the far right. The question then becomes whether or not other segments of the electorate will be similarly motivated to get out and vote. For Barack Obama, he has seemingly almost deliberately alienated many in the Democratic base - something that doesn't bode well for intensity in turn out. Moderates and independents are similarly disaffected at the moment based on polls, so intensity is obviously a huge question. Yes, the progressive may turn out to stop a truly scary GOP nominee, but what about the crucial middle? The Daily Beast looks at the issue of voter intensity and here are some highlights:

Intensity drives turnout. And as Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation: the 2012 presidential election will be all about intensity. Candidate Barack Obama benefited from intensity—a high positive intensity for himself and negative intensity for the opposing party in 2008, thanks in part to “Bush fatigue.”

Intensity is a mix of emotional and cognitive responses. Team Obama was masterful at marketing in 2008, connecting his brand to the emotional needs and aspirations of a broad cross-section of voters. The emotional intensity caused regular folks to faint and the media to swoon.

But now, with far more folks registering strong disapproval than strong approval of the president, an approval gap of -22 as measured by Rasmussen among likely voters, the presidential election this time around will be more about negative intensity—President Obama’s.

Marketers know—no matter how deep the emotional connection or brand loyalty—when a product does not perform, rational thought overtakes emotion, and most consumers make a new choice. With the continuing economic uncertainty and high unemployment, voter frustration isn’t going away. And intensity for the Obama brand is waning because the brand is not delivering the promised results. Once passionate followers are experiencing cognitive dissonance. The president’s team is going to learn it’s easier to launch a new brand than revive a damaged one.

Obama’s reelection campaign runs three risks: losing voters to the other party, losing voters to apathy, and losing the election because of the growing negative intensity against Obama that will drive Republican turnout. But that doesn’t clear all the hurdles for Republicans. Although the outcome of the GOP primary will likely be determined by positive intensity for the candidates, voters are much more wary and still divided. Who will drive more of the Tea Party, establishment, and moderate voters to the polls?

Perry will appeal to many concerned about our fiscal picture with his unmatched track record stewarding an economy (inherited from George W. Bush), helping create 40 percent of the net new jobs in the nation over the last two years alone, and expanding the state’s economy to the second largest in the nation while balancing the budget and not increasing taxes—proving he can deliver on his promises. But will Perry’s positive intensity survive the onslaught of attacks to come, from the middle and the left and the media?


Perry has his faults, which will be exposed over the course of the campaign. He’s far too conservative and hard for my taste. But as a political observer looking at the current environment, I know that intensity counts for a lot. And Perry’s got a lot of heat.

Election Day Reflections

My posts will be few today inasmuch as I have a crazy schedule: Court hearing this morning, run and vote and then serve as a "Protect the Vote" attorney at a majority black precinct in Norfolk. I have talked to a neighbor who is in line at my precinct and she reports a far, far longer line than is the norm and that most of the voters are blacks - not a surprise since I live in a neighborhood "in transition"- but the length of the line is unprecedented from what she says. If Norfolk can deliver a huge turnout minority vote, it will hopefully be enough for Obama to sweep Hampton Roads and thus Virginia.

*

In parts of the country - California, Arizona and Florida - today will decide whether or not the words "liberty and justice for all" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" truly apply to gays. If the anti-gay initiatives pass, in my view it will be proof that the PR this nation puts out about itself is in fact a lie. Moreover, it may further embolden the Christianists. I can only hope that a win by Obama may in time might turn back the tide of discrimination based on conformity with one set of religious beliefs. Should McCain win, in my view, it's over for this country in terms of true religious freedom, especially if he were to put more reactionaries on the Supreme Court.

*

Living in an anti-gay state like Virginia, it gets old and disheartening not having employment non-discrimination protections others take for granted. As I told a reporter yesterday who wanted my reflects on the impact of the "Marriage Amendment" passed two years ago, when I get contacted by out of state gays thinking of moving to Virginia I ask them why would they want to come here. In fact, my advise is don't come. At my age, I am over waiting for things to get better and to have real equality. In the event of a McCain/Palin win - God forbid - I just might look into leaving the USA. I hope it doesn't come to that. My emotions are a mix of excited optimism mixed with fear.