Romney vs. Obama

[TimG]

You would expect this to be true even if people were not at all racist.

 

Why?

[phil_20686]

Why?

 

Because people tend to sympathise with people of similar backgrounds. Since African Americans are (1) poor, and (2) receive a disproportionate amount of welfare, whereas white males are the most prosperous economic class, and are thus generally less keen on welfare spending.

 

All the people arguing that Romney was out of touch because of his rich background/friends, were basically implying that Obama sympathises with poor people because he comes from a relatively poor background.

 

Its just human nature.

[kenberg]

I predict that the next time the Democratic candidate is a white male, his share of the white male vote will be higher than Obama's.

http://www.theatlant...lection/258322/

 

Your link links further to the actual paper. I waded through some of it. I hope the referee suggests that he cut the length a bit.

 

The thought that some political strategist, of any allegiance, might start wading trough Google data to figure out where to place which ads is really repulsive. To borrow from Lincoln Steffens, I have seen the future and it sucks.

 

Being human, I checked out the ranking of my home state of Minnesota on his racially charged search index. 45th out of 51, which sounds decent until you look at the figures that show this fine ranking is because the racially charged index for Minnesota is "only" 46% of the figure for WV.

[TimG]

Because people tend to sympathise with people of similar backgrounds. Since African Americans are (1) poor, and (2) receive a disproportionate amount of welfare, whereas white males are the most prosperous economic class, and are thus generally less keen on welfare spending.

 

All the people arguing that Romney was out of touch because of his rich background/friends, were basically implying that Obama sympathises with poor people because he comes from a relatively poor background.

 

Its just human nature.

 

Are you saying it is human nature to see a black man and think he is poor (or came from a poor background)? And, then for white people not to be able to sympathize with him because they likely came from a less poor background?

[phil_20686]

Are you saying it is human nature to see a black man and think he is poor (or came from a poor background)? And, then for white people not to be able to sympathize with him because they likely came from a less poor background?

 

I don't know how you got to there from what I wrote, but I will try again.

 

Obama comes from a much poorer background than a typical presidential nominee. People sympathise with people from a similar background, as such, it is logical to assume that he sympathises with poor people more than an otherwise identical candidate from a white upper class background.

 

African Americans are (or one of) the poorest demographics. White males are the single richest demographic in the US. In general the richer you are the more you favour low taxes and the less you favour welfare/progressive policies.

 

A future democratic president is overwhelmingly likely to be from an upper middle class or outright rich background, so it is rational to expect that Obama priorities welfare and progressive policies more highly than a "normal" candidate. Thus his political priorities are more contrary to white males than is "normal" and you would expect a normal democratic candidate to get a larger white vote share, even if no one was racist.

 

Hence my comment to cherdano.

 

PS: I understand Bill clinton also came from a relatively poor background, but I can't think of any other prominent democratic politicians from poor backgrounds. Presumeably there are others on this board who can supply some more names, but I am confortable with the assumtion that most presidential candidates come from at least upper middle class backgrounds.

[kenberg]

PS: I understand Bill clinton also came from a relatively poor background, but I can't think of any other prominent democratic politicians from poor backgrounds. Presumeably there are others on this board who can supply some more names, but I am comfortable with the assumption that most presidential candidates come from at least upper middle class backgrounds.

 

Harry Truman? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "relatively poor". And I don't think that Lyndon Johnson was born rich. The Wikipedia tells us "Johnson was born in Stonewall, Texas, in a small farmhouse on the Pedernales River, the oldest of five children." So it may depend on whether you mean background at birth or background at the time he ran for president. Anyway, neither Truman nor Johnson should be confused with John Kennedy.

 

I have my own self-interests of course, but when I think of what's good for the country I reflect on what worked out pretty well for my parents and for me. Some of that, quite a bit actually, had to do with government as a force for opportunity. I am aware that overdoing the helping hand can squash initiative, hence my willingness to listen to conservative ideas, but I feel that this country has been very good to me and I would like it to be good to others.

[blackshoe]

It might be an interesting exercise to list all the Presidents, and which came from rich and poor backgrounds, and which of the rich (when elected) became rich via their own hard work (having started out poor) and how much richer each was after his Presidency.

 

I suspect later 20th and 21st Century Presidents are more likely to have come from rich backgrounds, though there are surely exceptions.

[hrothgar]

Obama comes from a much poorer background than a typical presidential nominee. People sympathise with people from a similar background, as such, it is logical to assume that he sympathises with poor people more than an otherwise identical candidate from a white upper class background.

 

Where do you get these ideas?

 

Truman's family was poor

Clinton's family was poor

McGovern's family was poor

Johnson's family was poor

 

Many of the remaining Democratic nomiees came from (at best) middle class backgrounds

[y66]

Good post by Krugman today

 

Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

And nothing people can do in their personal lives or behavior can change this. Your church and your traditional marriage won’t guarantee the value of your 401(k), or make insurance affordable on the individual market.

 

So here’s the question: isn’t this exactly the kind of economy that should have a strong welfare state? Isn’t it much better to have guaranteed health care and a basic pension from Social Security rather than simply hanker for the corporate safety net that no longer exists? Might one not even argue that a bit of basic economic security would make our dynamic economy work better, by reducing the fear factor?

I don't understand why white blue collar workers don't get this.

[kenberg]

I can perhaps guess a little about why this is not a hot button issue.

 

When I was thirty, I spent at most zero percent of my time thinking about how my life would be when I was seventy. OK, not quite true. We had options to choose our pension plan, and I chose the one with the biggest premiums and the biggest promise. Then I though about mu life in the short term future, to the extend I thought about life at all. I can't even tell you what health care plan I had, if any. It seems to me that we paid the obstetrician and the pediatrician in cash. No one else needed any medical care. So why think about it.

 

Jobs? Well, you had to learn how to do something useful and then you had to do it. Alternatively, you could get a Ph.D. :)

 

The Democrats need to re-think their message a bit. "We are the party that helps people who are out of work" does not play all that well with people who are working. A democrat is a conservative who has been laid off, perhaps.

 

Don't get me wrong, I vote Democratic. But I sometimes think their message needs a little work. In this last elctin they profited greatly from an incoherent Republican message. They should not put their faith in this in the future.

[Zelandakh]

The Democrats need to re-think their message a bit. "We are the party that helps people who are out of work" does not play all that well with people who are working.

I do not think this is the Democrtaic message any more than "We are the party of the Top 1% of earners" is the Republican message. These are the tags put on the parties by their opponents. That negative campaigning is successful is shown by even intelligent and thoughtful voters regurgitating such sound bites as truth. Think about how much easier it is to manipulate the average voter.

[kenberg]

I do not think this is the Democrtaic message any more than "We are the party of the Top 1% of earners" is the Republican message. These are the tags put on the parties by their opponents. That negative campaigning is successful is shown by even intelligent and thoughtful voters regurgitating such sound bites as truth. Think about how much easier it is to manipulate the average voter.

 

See the quote from Krugman in the Y66 post above. This is what I was referring to..The question was why white blue collar workers don't "get this". It's a good question. I come from a white blue collar background. My parents voted for Ike in 1952 but that was an anomaly caused by the Korean war. Mostly, they and the other adults in my neighborhood voted Democratic. Republicans are now much more successful in such neighborhoods than they were when I was young. Why so? It's a very good question that I think Democrats ignore at their peril. I am suggesting that, at least in part, the Krugman message does not resonate because it is not seen as applying to the healthy, young, employed worker. It is not enough to just say that well, it should.

 

Another way of putting this. If you want to get blue collar workers, forget Krugman and give a large bonus to the guy who came up with "General Motors is alive, Osama Bin Laden is dead". That's where it's at.

[Winstonm]

See the quote from Krugman in the Y66 post above. This is what I was referring to..The question was why white blue collar workers don't "get this". It's a good question. I come from a white blue collar background. My parents voted for Ike in 1952 but that was an anomaly caused by the Korean war. Mostly, they and the other adults in my neighborhood voted Democratic. Republicans are now much more successful in such neighborhoods than they were when I was young. Why so? It's a very good question that I think Democrats ignore at their peril. I am suggesting that, at least in part, the Krugman message does not resonate because it is not seen as applying to the healthy, young, employed worker. It is not enough to just say that well, it should.

 

Another way of putting this. If you want to get blue collar workers, forget Krugman and give a large bonus to the guy who came up with "General Motors is alive, Osama Bin Laden is dead". That's where it's at.

 

IMO much of this goes back quite far, to Reagan and the "Moral Majority". The Republican party successfully annexed the Christian right into the party by staking a claim to a fantasized morality standard - the lower-end workers who vote Republican are not as sophisticated in matters of economic health but are easily persuaded by emotive arguments that support their belief systems (aren't we all, indeed.)

 

One does wonder when the Nascar Voter will wake up and grasp that catering to the upper 2% includes neither them or good economic policy.

[kenberg]

Let me beat this horse just a little longer..In the quote from Krugman we see:

 

Now, none of this will bring back traditional mores — but that's really a different issue. In Sweden, more than half of children are born out of wedlock — but they don't seem to suffer much as a result, perhaps because the welfare state is so strong. Maybe we'll go that way too. So?

[/Quote]

 

Back to the neighborhood I grew up in. Every adult in that neighborhood has just written Krugman off as a moron. Sure, times change. . Or something. I have known people who say such things. Trust me, they do not apply this view to their own daughters.

 

Message to Republicans: Saying that a rape victim has to bear the child because it is God's will does not play in my old neighborhood, then or now..

 

Message to Democrats: Saying "Perhaps we will go like Sweden and have the kids raised out of wedlock. So?" does not play well there either.

[TimG]

A future democratic president is overwhelmingly likely to be from an upper middle class or outright rich background, so it is rational to expect that Obama priorities welfare and progressive policies more highly than a "normal" candidate. Thus his political priorities are more contrary to white males than is "normal" and you would expect a normal democratic candidate to get a larger white vote share, even if no one was racist.

Didn't Ted Kennedy come from a rather rich background and still champion the causes of the poor? I must admit to not having any idea how he voted on any issues, but doubt that he would have voted for tax cuts for the rich and the like.

[ArtK78]

Didn't Ted Kennedy come from a rather rich background and still champion the causes of the poor? I must admit to not having any idea how he voted on any issues, but doubt that he would have voted for tax cuts for the rich and the like.

And Ted Kennedy was one of the major backers of national health insurance.

[TimG]

I suspect later 20th and 21st Century Presidents are more likely to have come from rich backgrounds, though there are surely exceptions.

I believe that, when adjusted for times, our first President was also our richest President. (Kennedy came from a family with more money, but it wasn't all JFK's.)

[mike777]

Washington may have been the richest American at the time

 

Ted Kennedy was often against tax cuts for the rich but he did vote for some over a very long career.

 

He was indeed known as the Liberal Lion.

[PassedOut]

Newt Gingrich doesn't think that Romney lost because Obama showered the 47% with gifts: Newt Gingrich Says Mitt Romney's "Gifts" Comments Were "Insulting"

 

"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong. First of all, we didn't lose Asian-Americans because they got any gifts. He did worse with Asian-Americans than he did with Latinos. This is the hardest-working and most successful ethnic group in America, okay, they ain't into gifts."

 

"If it had been that simple, my question would be, 'Why didn't you outbid him?' He had enough billionaire supporters, if buying the electorate was the key, he could have got all his super PAC friends together and said, don't buy ads, give gifts. Be like the northwest Indians who have gift-giving ceremonies….Go town-by-town and say, 'Come here, let me give you gifts. Here are Republican gifts.' They could have an elephant coming in with gifts on it."

Yep, an elephant can carry more gifts than a donkey...

:)

[kenberg]

I am assuming the Republican party has been ordering in bulk Christmas Greeting cards that say "We thank you for your thoughtful analysis of our recent loss, now please shut up".

[Cthulhu D]

I am assuming the Republican party has been ordering in bulk Christmas Greeting cards that say "We thank you for your thoughtful analysis of our recent loss, now please shut up".

 

I'm pretty sure they already have a big order in that go something along the lines of "Stop talking making amazingly dumb and ill informed comments about rape!"

[Vampyr]

This link has some estimates of the Presidents' wealth.

[y66]

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2012/11/26/p465/121126_daily-cartoon-mon_p465.jpg

[y66]

I am assuming the Republican party has been ordering in bulk Christmas Greeting cards that say "We thank you for your thoughtful analysis of our recent loss, now please shut up".

 

How about something musical instead?

 

The problem is all inside your head

She said to me

The answer is easy if you

Take it logically

I'd like to help you in your struggle

To be free

There must be fifty ways

To fix this party.

 

Just slip out the hall Paul.

You weren't a good fit Mitt.

Get a new snarl Karl.

Just listen to me.

[PassedOut]

Conservative columnist David Brooks has an interesting piece about how republicans might go about recapturing the votes of sensible conservatives by adopting the positions of young writers and bloggers: The Conservative Future

 

By and large, these diverse writers did not grow up in the age of Reagan and are not trying to recapture it. They disdain what you might call Donor Base Republicanism. Most important, they matured intellectually within a far-reaching Web-based conversation. In contrast to many members of the conservative political-entertainment complex, they are data-driven, empirical and low-key in tone.

 

They are united more by a style of feedback and mutual scrutiny than by a common agenda. Some politically unorthodox people in this conversation, such as Josh Barro of Bloomberg View, Meghan Clyne of National Affairs and Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, specialize in puncturing sentimentality and groupthink.

 

Since Nov. 6, the G.O.P. has experienced an epidemic of open-mindedness. The party may evolve quickly. If so, it’ll be powerfully influenced by people with names like Reihan, Ramesh, Yuval and Derek Khanna.

Indeed it would be valuable for the US if the national republicans stopped doubling down on being (to use Governor Jindal's words) "the stupid party." It's always important to have a plausible electoral choice.