So what do you all think of the accusations that O stole the election? (Personally, I do not doubt he would if he could, but did he?)

A lot of people are asking how is it possible that so many polls were so wrong? Add that to the kind of info like that linked in this blog article & it does make me wonder.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/22-signs-that-voter-fraud-is-wildly-out-of-control-and-the-election-was-a-sham

Opinions?

I don't think Romney lost due to voter fraud. (not even close to the reason for his loss)

I do think voter fraud is real because it has always been present.

Americans "cheat" at sport, taxes, marriage, academic testing (including in large scale rings of students at Harvard and West Point and teachers and administrators in Atlanta) and anything where the stakes are viewed as worth the risk (Seminary students cheat on Bible tests). I think it is naive to believe such activity would stop at the venerated curtain of the polling booth.

But the kind of "cheating" that occurs most is very difficult to police (even with voter ID laws BTW). Most "cheating" that I encountered in my research of historic voter fraud connected to my dissertation involved "clear conscience" cheating and generally involves a very small circle (1 to 5) of individuals with knowledge of the fraud. Some examples:

Filling out the vote for mentally incompetent relatives or friends because you "know" how they would vote if they could. (this is primarily a product of absentee voting and can include registration to vote as well with the ballot being collected "for" the person). This can actually be done legally by those with power of attorney but is most often done by self-appointed (not court appointed) gaurdians.

Filling out the vote for relatives, friends, or neighbors who are too irresponsible to do so themselves but for whom you feel confident you can speak. (this is primarily a product of absentee voting and can include registration to vote as well with the ballot being collected "for" the person). This voting a person's "proxy" can easily be overlooked (if it is even detectable, which it usually is not) by a sympathetic election official.

Double voting (someone voting twice - as themselves and then as someone else): this is the same method and justification as above but in person. This method requires a sympathetic election official and the absence of non-sympathetic official or opposition poll-watchers. This is far easier than most folks realize. Many precincts involve only one, two, or three election officials (often lacking any outside party oversight) and a conspiracy of 2 or 3 is easy to achieve especially when the "clear conscience" justification is shared by all concerned.

Ballot Box stuffing (election officials adding ballots by voting registered voters who did not show up on election day after the polls closed). Again this occurs with regularity in the historic record (though it can go decades without being exposed [if ever]) because all it requires a a precinct level is a very small number of like minded individuals con conspire. I encounted many examples of this, especially when the individuals thought they were doing nothing wrong as they only added votes based on their understanding of how the registered voters who didn't show up "would have voted" if the had been able to make it to the polls. I even talked to one man who told me it was "fair" because in his precinct folks had voted 3 to 1 for his guy (at 65% turnout) so he just increased the vote to 90% turnout at the same ratio (which naturally increased the vote of his community which he thought served the interests of the "will of his community" in state affairs."

Very little individual in person "guilty conscience" fraud, (like registering as a dead person or under the assumed name of a stranger) or wholesale falsifying of election results by officials occur because those kinds of actions leave a much apparent trial of evidence and can get you caught. But when folks feel justifed in making sure that "every vote counts" in a community (even the ones who really don't care enough to do it themselves) they can easily get away with quite a bit of what most outsiders would consider fraud. But for them it's just making sure that every voice was heard.

The saddest part about this for me is that I know from history that any widely held perception of fraud ALWAYS leads to either reform of the ballot box OR fraud on the part of those who think the other side is doing it.

As one frustraited 19th century politican exclaimed after losing an election he believed to be as the result of fraud (which was true),

"We will not play 'honest' with utter scoundrelism!" He won the next election because his stuffed ballot boxs were bigger than his opponents.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

What about the vulnerabilities of electronic voting though? Doesn't that open up more dramatic possibilities?

The reports that article links to of fair-sized places where not a single Romney vote was cast really make me wonder if the Dems haven't figured out how to do it.

And I am beyond perplexed that Congress did nothing when it was demonstrated to them how easily these voting machines can be hacked!

I am a luddite so I don't care for any "paperless" system of voting. But I think the claims of electronic fraud are easily made and often the result of standard random electronic error. After the first wave of electronic only voting fears in 2004 (which were claims made by the Dems BTW), most of the systems used became hybrids with paper voting/audit features and electronic processing.

The 99% or better precinct is actually NOT itself significant. You can get unanimity within voting groups and groups can be uniform in a precinct. It is hyper-elevated turnout (especially relative to neighboring precincts/counties in the same election) coupled with large margins that are suspicious (even then it may be nothing). I'm confident you can find rural precincts (especially rural Mormon ones) with 99% Romney vote.

The most obvious "signs" are when there is no correlation between turnout percentage and margin of victory in precincts. That is the real red flag. For example:

If you have three precincts in the same ward with the following:

Pct 22: - turnout 50% eligible voters - Smith 70% /McIrish 30%
Pct 23: - turnout 60% eligible voters - Smith 40% /McIrish 60%
Pct 24: - turnout 90% eligible voters - Smith 1% / McIrish 99%

The above may simple be due to McIrish's voter group being more motivated to vote than the general population. In Pct 22 the 20% Irish voters in the precinct are turning out at a greater rate than their non-irish neighbors. In Pct 23 the 35% are; and in Pct 24 the 95% Irish voters in the precinct, which covers the six tenements of factory workers for the mill, vote 99% McIrish.

It is THIS that would be suspect:

Pct 22: turnout 50% - Smith 70%/ McIrish 30%
Pct 23: turnout 60% - Smith 60%/ McIrish 40%
Pct 24: turnout 90% - Smith 1%/ McIrish 99%

The above could mean that the precinct dominated by the Irish mill workers is inflating their turnout numbers. (But warning: perhaps the better turnout of Irish in Pct 23 is due to being able to better mobilize the Irish around the mill than the Irish who are more scattered in Pct 23; it could also indicated that Smith supporters in Pct 23 are surpressing the Irish vote or manipulating the results IF they run the election in the precinct).

But the more anomalies you have the more suspect the results. I stand by my general conclusion: yes there was likely cheating (and of the kind that is almost never "in person fraud" - that is NOT the historic kind that is problematic) - no it did not swing the election - yes it should be gaurded against. We forget so quickly that it was not "voter supression" that was the sole means of disenfranchisement in the past. Adding votes that were not fully legitimate was also widely employed. You can nullify the citizen's voice expressed in voting by either muting it (suppression) or drowning it out with a bullhorn (overvoting).

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

As long as the Republicans continue to get slaughtered by the Democrats in every ethnic

demographic other than whites, the Democrats don't even need to commit voter fraud. All

they have to do is collect the votes that the GOP is, intentionally or unintentionally, writing

off. Let's go through the swing states to see what I am talking about:



1 - Florida - 29 Electoral Votes
Total Population, all ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida#Demographics)
:
White non-Hispanic population: 57.9%
African-American: 16.0%
Hispanic: 22.5%
Other Race: 3.6%

Exit polls ([url]http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/florida/president/#
[/url]):
White non-Hispanic : 67% of those polled, Romney got 61% of them
Black: 13% of those polled, Romney got 4% of them
Hispanic: 17% of those polled, Romney got 39% of them
Other: 2% of those polled, Romney got 39% of them

Do the math:
White non-Hispanic : 67 x 0.61 = 40.87 points
Black: 13 x 0.04 = 0.52 points
Hispanic: 17 x .39 = 6.63 points
Other: 2 x 0.39 = 0.78 points
Total = 48.8. Romney loses.

Romney would need to win a pretty incredible 63% of the white vote in order to offset his massive losses with other groups. Or he could win by getting 46% of the Hispanic vote just 13% of the black vote.



2 - Ohio- 18 Electoral Votes
Total Population, all ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio#Demographics)
:
White non-Hispanic population: 82.7%
African-American: 12.2%
Hispanic: 3.1%
Asian: 1.7%

Exit polls (http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/ohio/president/#exitPoll):
White non-Hispanic : 79% of those polled, Romney got 57% of them
Black: 15% of those polled, Romney got 3% of them
Hispanic: 3% of those polled, Romney got 42% of them

Do the math:
White non-Hispanic : 79 x 0.57 = 45.03 points
Black: 15 x 0.03 = 0.45 points
Hispanic: 3 x 0.42 = 1.26 points
Total = 46.74. Romney loses.

Romney would need to win a 61% of the white vote in order to offset his massive losses with other groups. Or he could win by getting 17% of the African American vote (which is probably not far from what George W. Bush got in this state just eight years ago).




3 - Virginia - 13 Electoral Votes
Total Population, all ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia#Demographics)
:
White non-Hispanic population: 64.5%
African-American: 19.8%
Hispanic: 8.2%
Asian: 5.8%

Exit polls

(http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/virginia/president/#exitPoll):
White non-Hispanic : 70% of those polled, Romney got 61% of them
Black: 20% of those polled, Romney got 6% of them
Hispanic: 5% of those polled, Romney got 33% of them
Asian: 3% of those polled, Romney got 32% of them.

Do the math:
White non-Hispanic : 61 x 0.70 = 42.7 points
Black: 20 x 0.06 = 1.2 points
Hispanic: 5 x 0.33 = 1.65 points
Asian: 3 x 0.32 = 0.96 points
Total = 46.51. Romney loses.

Romney would need to win an amazing 66% of the white vote in order to offset his massive losses with every other group. Or he could win by getting 23% of the African American vote. Or 70% of the Hispanic vote.



4 - Pennsylvania - 20 Electoral Votes
Total Population, all ages ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania#Demographics

[/url])
:
White non-Hispanic population: 79.2%
African-American: 11.3%
Hispanic: 0.3%
Asian: 2.9%

Exit polls

(http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/pennsylvania/president/#exitPoll):
White non-Hispanic : 78% of those polled, Romney got 57% of them
Black: 13% of those polled, Romney got 6% of them
Hispanic: 6% of those polled, Romney got 18% of them

Do the math:
White non-Hispanic : 78 x 0.57 = 44.46 points
Black: 13 x 0.06 = 0.78 points
Hispanic: 6 x 0.18 = 1.08 points
Total = 46.32. Romney loses.

Romney would need to win 61% of the white vote in order to offset his massive losses with every other group. Or he could win by getting 35% of the black vote.



The bad thing for the Republican Party is that the Democrats don't even need to cheat as long as the GOP refuses to actively reach out to conservative voters of all ethnic backgrounds. The Democrats sort of have the luxury to drive out its base and watch as a lot of voters who could be part of the Republican base decide that they can't vote Republican because they think (or know) that the party isn't really interested in them.

This is because many of the places in this country that have the highest percentage populations of blacks, Hispanics and Asians, all of whom vote Democrat more than Republican, are swing states. Most of them are swing states because of the ethnic composition of the state. And the problem is only getting worse for the GOP. Within eight years, Arizona will most likely be a swing state.

I liken the suspicions some have about the election being rigged to a football team that has such poor performance from the special teams and the defense that they allow their opponent to start drives on the 40 yard line, don't bother trying to put defensive players on an entire side of the field and allow their opponents to score a lot of points in an almost uncontested fashion. But then, after the game, the players start talking about how the refs might be responsible for them losing the game. And the point of the analogy is this: when there is a glaring, obvious flaw in the way an organization is performing and there are obvious reason why they are losing, it's probably better to focus on fixing those flaws than it is to concentrate on very unlikely contributing factors to the losing.

The GOP just can't give up the percentages of minority voters that it's giving up and have any realistic expectation of winning a national election anytime after 2012. After they fix that glaring flaw, they can turn their attention to issues that are much less likely to be contributing to their results, like supposed voter fraud.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

Meanwhile, the Maine GOP chief is hot on the trail of what he thinks is voter fraud ...


Maine GOP boss: Sorry for ‘dozens of black people’ comment
http://natmonitor.com/2012/11/17/maine-gop-boss-sorry-for-dozens-of-black-people-comment-video/

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

TVV – I again agree with the argument that Republicans must not write-off any voters. But you have overstated your case using the math in the way you have. You have assumed that all non-Romney votes in the exit polls are Obama votes. That is not the case. Furthermore the Exit Polls in Florida actually show Romney with a marginal win based on the "racial" crosstabs you site.

Florida:

White non-Hispanic : 67% of those polled, Romney got 61% (Obama 37%)
Black: 13% of those polled, Romney got 4% (Obama 95%)
Hispanic: 17% of those polled, Romney got 39% (Obama 60%)
Other: 2% of those polled, Romney got 39% (59%)

Do the math for Obama as well:
White non-Hispanic : 67 x 0.37 = 24.79 points
Black: 13 x 0.95 = 12.35 points
Hispanic: 17 x .60 = 10.2 points
Other: 2 x 0.59 = 1.18 points

Total = 48.52 = Obama loses.
Total = 48.8 = Romney actually wins.

Ohio:
Here the exits still indicate an Obama win. But the margin based on the crosstabs you are using is 1.67%

White non-Hispanic: 79% of those polled, Romney got 57% (41% Obama)
Black: 15% of those polled, Romney got 3% of them (96% Obama)
Hispanic: 3% of those polled, Romney got 42% (54% Obama)

Do the math for Obama as well:
White non-Hispanic: 79 x 0.41 = 32.39 points
Black: 15 x 0.96 = 14.4 points
Hispanic: 3 x 0.54 = 1.62 points

Total = 48.41 Obama wins
Total = 46.74. Romney loses.

1.67% margin of Obama win.

This margin can easily be closed without doing anything to effect the vote of minority voters (either in their general turnout percentage or the share of the vote for Romney).

If Romney had won white voters that turned out on Election Day by 1.1% more than he did (at Obama’s expense) you get this:

47.61 - Romney
47.54 - Obama

Again I want to say that I am for reaching out to all voters, but I think Romney’s lack of appeal with minority voters did not cost him the election. His lack of appeal with poor voters (which does include many minority voters) cost him the election.

The most consistent predictor of voter preference across ALL demographics was income. The GOP needs its message to appeal to the economic interests of all Americans (which is an argument that can still be based on the fact that a morally bankrupt society will not be a fiscally prosperous one).

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

I'm sure certain Democrats engaged in fraud, but I bet certain Republicans did as well.

I have no reason to think the D's have a monopoly on illegal votes, just as they don't have a monopoly on marital infidelity and so forth.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.

I don't believe the D's have a monopoly on it at all, but they do seem to be more likely to engage in it than R's (though admittedly, the fact that I get most of my news from conservative outlets does bias my information).

Doc,

You are right that I only ran the numbers against Romney's share of the exit polls. I am going to, when I get some time this week, run all the exit polls, for both sides, as I am really curious to know more about the "what-ifs."

It's possible that I am overstating the impact - I do admit that this is an issue that is close to my heart and has been for a long time. But, on the other hand, I really can't understand, philosophically or statistically, how either party can get 6% of the vote of one group of voters comprising 13% of the population and 27% of another group of voters comprising 15% of the population, with both groups being heavily concentrated in swing states, and expect to win. You may disagree with my theory that this issue was a deciding factor in this election. But I really have a hard time understanding many other ways to interpret the fact that Romney got a near-historically high share of support from white voters but still lost the election decisively. And he came uncomfortably close to losing conservative and southern North Carolina.

I don't understand how, if these numbers are not reversed, the GOP will be able to win national elections within a couple of cycles. I think that if the party does not treat the issue of reaching out to all voters of every ethnic group as a top priority, it will likely not be long before there are few possible electoral paths to victory for tomorrow's Republican Presidential candidate.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

Romney lost because he couldn't make an appeal that connected to all Americans on cultural, or philosophical, or economic lines. He also lost because he was blocked in that regard by an overt appeal to identity politics on the part of Obama. Any Republican has to do more than reach out, they also must deal with the preception that appeals to identity politics by Democrats are somehow OK and empowering rather than divisive, demogogic, and risk backlash.

Here's a nice tidbit showing the cluelessness of the Obama team when in comes to the double standard on "inclusion" practiced by too many on the left:



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s ... tes-or-men

TVV - this whole thing makes me sick. But not for the reason that many bemoan about the coming dominance of an emerging Democratic demographic.

I'm sick because I know as a Southern historian that the path taken in 2012 by Obama and Chicago risks a reverse mobilzation based on racial identity politics. Contrary to the demographic theory, states with high minority populations do not "naturally" trend toward democratic rule.

Here is a breakdown of the states from "whitest" to "most minority (least white) [with Red/Blue Presidential vote in 2012)

Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Idaho
West Virginia.........3 to 2
Iowa
Wyoming
Utah
North Dakota
Nebraska..............4 to 6
Montana
Kentucky
Colorado
Wisconsin.............7 to 8
Minnesota
Kansas
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Indiana................9 to 11
Arizona
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Ohio...................12 to 13
Washington
Connecticut
New Mexico
Texas
Michigan..............16 to 14
Nevada
Arkansas
Tennessee
Florida
Illinois.................18 to 17
Oklahoma
California
New Jersey
Delaware
North Carolina.......21 to 19
New York
Virginia
Alabama
Alaska
South Carolina......23 to 22
Georgia
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
Hawaii.................25 to 25

Notice that there is ZERO correlation between the presence or lack of "whites" and the ability of either party to take a particular state.

BUT - if we break out just African-Americans

The GOP dominates five of the six states with the greatest Black population (over 25% as opposed to the national average of 12.6% [also lost in most conversations is the fact that this percentage has only risen 1% point in thirty years which is hardly a crashing demographic wave). Seven of the top ten were likewise GOP states in 2012.

IF identity poliltics beomes the new normal for both parties the GOP can easily (and for me sadly) align itself with "white" hispanics (which is the largest growing group) to create its own "identity constituency group" thank you letter like the Obama team.

God help us if that happens.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Doc,

You and I have a common goal of getting to the point where "race" is not a factor in the way people vote, in the way that we form friendships and relationships, and in the way we think about our primary identity. We don't want politicians to be treating different groups of people differently and having different policies for different people. We want the day to arrive where we can all just be "American" and concentrate on all the things that we all care about as Americans and not on factional politics.

I may be wrong in thinking this - please correct me if I am - but I get the impression that when you hear me say that Republicans need to reach out to black voters that you think that I am suggesting that this means that Republicans need to appeal to identity politics. That they need to do some of the things that we've seen Democrats do (example: Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, or even President Obama suddenly catching a Southern Baptist preacher accent when they happen to visit a group of black voters in a church). If so, this is actually not what I'm suggesting.

I also could be wrong in thinking this and so keep me honest, but, I think you are suggesting that the reason most black voters vote Democratic is because of a Democratic appeal to racial politics, especially with Obama being the current head of the Democratic Party. Also, I thought you might have suggested that even if the Republican Party tried to reach out to minority voters that this would have little effect because of Democratic appeals to either ethnic identity or to class.

What I'm saying is actually something that I think everybody here should agree with. I'm not suggesting that Republicans give special treatment to black and Hispanic voters. What I'm suggesting is that Republicans treat black and Hispanic voters like every other group of voters whom the party is trying to attract.

Some will say that the Republicans do treat all voters the same. That they don't play identity politics. That the reason the Democratic Party is doing so well with every ethnic group other than white voters is because they do play those divisive, us-versus-them identity games and pander to individual groups. Some will say that the GOP treats every group the same way and that their unwillingness to be like Democrats and "pander" is why the Democrats have done so well with pretty much every ethnic minority group.

And I'll respectfully say to those people that I believe they are wrong. A primary problem with today's Republican Party is that they do treat different ethnic groups differently. They don't do it in the same way that the Democrats do - by overemphasizing race, ethnicity and gender at every opportunity and trying to infuse it into every issue. Republicans do it either by choosing to ignore or write off entire groups of voters ("blacks - they won't vote for us anyway, so, why bother? They all want government handouts") or by trying to attract voters but having their messages drowned out by the insensitivity and careless words of some in the party.

On the first point, here's an example of how a political party could treat all voters the same. A candidate wants to talk about the importance of ensuring that America balances its budget and doesn't go into perpetual debt. The candidate goes into a suburban area and talks to the suburban business leaders about the need for this country to balance its books. Then the candidate goes into the inner city and talks to the local business leaders there about the same thing. It's an issue that affects everyone. And the candidate doesn't miss the opportunity to meet any group of voters. They don't consider the downtown section of any city in America to be "flyover country."

Republicans generally don't bother to introduce themselves to black voters. It's as if they've already decided that we're not going to vote for them no matter what and that it's not worth the trouble to try. But one reality that I hope people realize is that they've never actually really tried - not for any sustained period of time. I have not uncovered evidence that anytime in the past fifty years the Republican Party as a group has made a sustained (more than one election cycle) effort to simply show up in places where black people live and ask us for our vote. There was talk about it in the 1966 election after the shock of the Barry Goldwater disaster. There was more talk about it in 1978. Reagan started trying to reach black voters in 1980 but seemed to give up on it after the Neshoba County Fair "state's rights" controversy. George H.W. Bush started trying again in 1990. Dole tried in 1996, apologizing and trying to backtrack after snubbing an invitation to speak to the NAACP. Ken Mehlman tried in 2002 and 2004. They started again in 2009. But it's been fits and starts. Try for a year or two and then quit when it doesn't seem to work. I'll be bold enough to say that I don't believe that the post-1964 Republican Party has ever made attempts to even simply have a presence among black voters for more than perhaps two years at a time. Basic stuff - showing up with some frequency where voters live ... And telling them why they should vote for you. Then they give up, go away, and remain satisfied with the status quo - rely on the formula and coalition that worked flawlessly from the late 60's until the early part of this century. The problem is that the demographic composition of the coalition that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 is not likely to be successful in electing a President in 2012. Simply put: from 1972 through about 1988 or so, Republicans could safely afford to write off minority voters. And so they did. From 1992 through 2004 it was a lot harder to write them off and win but the GOP managed to squeak out bare minimum electoral victories in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. Now, the amount of support a candidate will need from white voters if they don't get much support from minorities is often unrealistically high.

My perception - and the perception of nearly every black person I've spoken with about the issue, conservative, moderate and liberal - is that the GOP spends almost no time attempting to solicit our votes. It's not about being "pandered to" or having some especially crafted theme delivered just for us, as if a stump speech needed to be translated into a different language. It's about simply being treated in the same way that everyone else is. Having someone knock on your door. Having someone ask for your vote. Hearing an acknowledgement that you exist outside of someone voicing an assumption or insult. I don't believe that the Republican Party, in general, asks for my vote because too many of the decision makers and candidates falsely assume how I might vote, what I want and what I believe. And part of the reason that they falsely assume these things is because they don't talk to me and don't ask what's important to me. If they did, they'd discover that I want most of the same things that they do.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

That's true. But these states are also states that are very conservative politically and also have an unusual amount of cohesion in the behavior of white voters.

Take the state of Mississippi for example (http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/mississippi/president/#exitPoll). Yes, this state went for Romney and this state also has the largest concentration of black voters of any state in the country. But it's also notable that 89% of white voters in the exit poll voted for Romney while 96% of black voters voted for Obama. In neighboring Alabama (http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/alabama/president/#exitPoll) which is another of the states with the highest black population, 84% of white voters voted for Romney while 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Because there are no states in the union where blacks outnumber whites, it's nearly a given that if enough whites vote for the same candidate, that candidate will win no matter how unified the black support is for an opposing candidate.

However, there aren't many states where any candidate or party will earn more than 62% of white voter support. And, with the exception of black voters and their support for the Democratic Party, there aren't many places where any one ethnic group will give more than 70% of its support to any one party. And so this is where the things I've talked about become important. In states where the white voter support is relatively close (within a specified margin), minority voters, if supporting one party overwhelmingly, may determine the state's outcome. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia have higher percentages of black voters than Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan. But while white voters in the southern states are more likely to vote for a particular party, overriding the impact of the minority lean to the Democratic Party, white voters in the swing states are more conflicted between the two parties, making the votes of blacks and Hispanics in particular extremely pivotal. And so one can win some states by appealing only to the "Reagan coalition" demographics, that formula will not win in a lot of the places a candidate needs to win in order to become President.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

I am old enough to have watched this show before. Republicans have, in fact, done major outreach to minority groups in previous cycles. It is just extremely difficult to make any inroads given the Democrats advantage at winning over the support of minority community “leadership” groups as the party of larger direct governmental action. These "leaders" have a vested interest in maintaining group identity and their role as arbiters of what constitutes the "important" group issues. Without "group identity" and discretionary budget priorites distributed by their Democratic Party allies in Washington, many of these leaders would be out of work. It's old fashion "Tammy-Hall" machine politics based on patronage and ethnic/social bloc voting. And it is historically extremely hard to defeat or even chip away at.

The Dole-Kemp campaign is a fine example of how hard it is for the GOP to move the ball, even with candidates who have stellar reputations on mainstream civil rights issues.

Speaking of Bob Dole in 1996 the NYT (which wasn’t exactly prone to wanting to praise him) said:



http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/magaz ... all&src=pm

Dole then chooses Jack Kemp as his running mate. No one had done more to sincerely and earnestly break the stereotype of conservatives “writing off” minority communities than Kemp.

The Dole-Kemp ticket saw its total go from the 10% of African-American vote gained by the alleged “race-baiting Willie-Horton” Bush 41, to 12%.

Despite these results, in 2000 Bush 43 address the NAACP in Baltimore and began his outreach. He toured minority neighborhoods, met with group leaders, and recruited Innis (CORE) and [temporarily] Harlem’s reformer Flake to his effort. He proposed a major overhaul in education aimed at improving public schools with the specific goal of dealing with the collapse of inner city systems.

The NAACP responded by tying Bush to the chain-dragging James Byrd lynching by three Jasper, TX bigots. The ad ran heavily in battleground states with minority populations. Against the grainy black and white images of the back of an old "redneck" pickup dragging a snapping chain, the following voice over:


BTW- of the three killers (who were charged and sentenced without the benefit of “hate-crimes” legislation) One has been executed; one is on death row; one is serving life without parole.

In Election 2000 Bush received 8% of the Black vote, 4 percent less than Dole. Bush also reached out to Hispanics and his efforts drew 34% support; up significantly from Dole’s 21%.

Bush as President refused to attend any further meetings of the NAACP. He did though have Colin Powell and Condi Rice among other visible expressions that he was not a Texas bigot. In 2004, having actually snubbed many of the groups he reached out to 2000 (only to be attacked in return) he increased his share of the African-American vote to 11%. Hispanics to 40-45% (in dispute as to the best number).

In terms of practical politics the GOP choice is clear. Reach out to Hispanics because they are approachable. Efforts with the African-American community are a very poor investment of resources.

I want to make my point clear: I think the GOP should reach out to ALL Americans because it is the right thing to do. But it is not pragmatically needed. I personally reject pragmatism- it is worse than moral or immoral - it is amoral. It is pragmatism that I am hearlng as the main line of argument (not you). And it is a pragmatic argument that will push the GOP toward its own “identity politics” policy shifts to coble together enough disgruntled groups to get Karl Rove’s magic 50% plus one. And in the process we shall see “values issues” jettisoned whenever the pragmatic solution requires. One of those values for me is a color-blind society. I truly hate this stuff TVV and I hope I don’t come across wrong. We torture the poor census folks every time they come because my family refuses to check ANY of the race-identity boxes. They came back six times for the info in 2000. My son Sam quipped, “why don’t we just put down “Half-elf” in the “other” fill-in-the-blank” line. I love him so. I so long for leaders, of both parties who will move us toward:
E Pluribus Unum.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

I'm old enough to remember the Dole/Kemp 1996 campaign and the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign extremely well. And my perspective is that of one of the black voters who watched these campaigns, not being a liberal and having no affinity to the Democratic Party, not listening to the direction of the "Tammany Hall" style machinery - and, yet - coming to the very solid conclusion that the Republican Party as a whole was not interested in me. And so while we very well disagree, please understand that I am trying to give a perspective from the other side of the street. I was one of those potentially approachable voters who felt completely alienated by the GOP for reasons that have nothing to do with the factors that you cite for blacks not voting Republican.

The 1996 election of course was the first Presidential election after the GOP 1994 takeover of Congress. At the time I was a young man just starting to pay very close attention to politics and I consumed every bit of information that I could from both sides. As the Republicans took over Congress, I saw a number of things occur that gave me pause and concern as a black person. I remember the controversy that arose when Senator Conrad Burns of Montana was asked by a constituent how he could stand living in D.C. The exact quote was "Conrad, how can you live back there with all those (n-words)?" to which Burns replied that it was "a [expletive] of a challenge." I watched to see whether or not he would be disciplined in any way by the Republican leadership; I don't believe he was. A couple of months later, as the Republicans took power, one of their first actions was to punish the Congressional Black Caucus. They also immediately removed the ceremonial voting rights for Eleanor Holmes Norton of DC. Now I disagree with the CBC and Norton on almost every issue, both now and then. But, to me, hearing some of the rhetoric from some Republicans such as Burns, and seeing these things sent a bad signal about the way Republicans might feel about blacks. I also saw nothing in the form of outreach despite looking continuously for it.

I was open to voting for Bob Dole. I was lukewarm about Bill Clinton and disagreed with him on his support for abortion. I wanted to vote for a non-Democrat who would make it clear by his actions that he was going to defy the gravity imposed by the post-1964 Republican Party and reach out to me. I remember that Dole publicly refused to accept an invitation from the NAACP - so that he could attend a baseball game. Although I disagree with most policy positions of the NAACP, both now and then, I felt as though he was passing up one of the few chances that he had to dialogue with African American voters. I felt personally insulted. The Republicans, which at the time included Pat Buchanan, whom I did not have a good feeling about, were giving this young conservative black voter a bad impression. I felt, then and now, like a man without a party. I clearly wasn't a Democrat and never would be. But I felt like the Republicans weren't interested in me.

I also paid very close attention in 1999 when it became known that Senator Trent Lott and Representative Bob Barr, two high profile Republicans, had been associated with a neo-conservative hate group known as the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization whose President has called blacks a "retrograde species of humanity" (and an organization that Mike Huckabee publicly condemned as being racist and intolerant). It turned out that Lott's ties to the group are quite deep with some of his family members also having membership. Again, no discipline was handed out by the party leadership. It gave me the impression that this type of thing was no big deal. So, I start thinking to myself, "if I vote for the Republicans, am I going to end up putting a couple of psudo-Klan types in higher positions of power." I didn't think it was that silly of a question, since the hate group already had associations with the current Senate Majority Leader.

President George W. Bush had earned 27% of the African American vote in Texas and there was every expectation that he would outperform previous Republican Presidential candidates in this segment of the vote when it was his turn in 2000. I did not like Al Gore at all and wanted an alternative (I ended up supporting John McCain for the GOP nomination in 2000). What bothered me about Bush included his unwillingness to stake a position on the Confederate Flag (NOTE: I do realize that for many people, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of southern pride and not racism. For me, it is a symbol that I associate with slavery and Jim Crow due to its usage as a symbol by those who fought for those things. I respect those who do not intend to use the flag as a symbol of offense but also expect people to respect the fact that many Americans disagree and see it as divisive). I also did not understand why Bush, who was running during a time that there was an epidemic of church bombings and other racially-tinged violence and domestic terrorism, opposed a hate crime statute, which I thought was essential for making this type of thing more rare. I didn't think Bush was a bad guy or a racist. But I did think he was too afraid of so-called "racial conservatives" within the GOP to stand up and be an open champion of embracing everybody of every race.

What turned me into a Bush supporter was not so much his appointing of Rice and Powell to cabinet posts but his role in putting an end to the Trent Lott episode in 2002. Since I've been an adult, I've always leaned to the right and have identified ideologically more as a Republican than a Democrat. But what I've needed to see was a Republican whom I could be sure not only didn't harbor racist resentments personally but also wouldn't tolerate them in anyone else. By the end of 2002, Bush had shown me enough to convince me that my earlier calculation of him was incomplete and that I could vote for this Republican. It also helped that Ken Mehlman, the RNC Chair, made it a point of working to court the support of conservative African Americans. I appreciated that and to this day hold both Bush and Mehlman in high regard because I don't feel like they ignored me.

From the eyes of a black person who has watched the Republican Party intently for almost two decades and has studied the history of the party especially over the past 48 years, I can tell you that it's my honest opinion that, for a significant percentage of black voters, the primary impediment that is keeping the GOP from making inroads with black voters is not Democratic tactics but the GOP itself. Every couple of months, some high-profile idiot does or says something else that is highly questionable if not downright inflammatory. Almost every time a party hotshot talks on TV about the things that the GOP should do to win voters, they don't bother to even mention African Americans. What would you think about the Republican Party if you felt that they not only tolerated a number of people who seem to be hostile to you but that they ignore you. Perhaps, in some ways, the way that some white voters may feel about the Democratic Party, which, as you pointed out earlier, are widely perceived as ignoring white men.

Also, I strenously disagree with the concept that Republicans have done any serious outreach to black voters in all my years of being an adult. I've looked for it, asked for it, almost begged for it and still haven't seen it. And for every attempt that has been made, I can generally explain how those attempts have been undermined by either brevity - give up if it hasn't worked in a year or two - or by conflicting messages - someone saying or doing something to contradict a message of inclusiveness or invitation. I'd be happy to give more examples.

Lastly, it's not an impossible task to win back voters that a party has alienated. It just takes long-term committment, time and actual sustained effort. Not effort to pander or try to be something that you're not. Just commitment to show up. For the first wave of Republicans that decide to ask for votes of black voters, they will face rejection. If they give up and go away, we'll never get out of this cycle. But if they continue, keep asking and keep showing up, the "no" responses will get softer. Eventually they'll become "maybes." And then there will be more "yes" responses. Mitt Romney didn't try hardly at all to reach out to black voters and even he got a higher percentage of black voters support than John McCain did in 2008. Can you imagine what could happen if a couple of candidates in a row actually try - without some loudmouth divisive idiot showing up to undermine the message? It would be a new political reality that would eventually, slowly, brick by brick, yank at the foundation out of the Democratic coalition and unify conservative voters of all ethnic backgrounds.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

In order to get to the goal of eliminating racial disparity in party support - something that keeps the Democratic Party in power and makes it harder and harder for conservatives to stand together without being divided along artificial lines of "race," we need to understand and resolve the reasons why there is such division. While identity politics and political gamesmanship are indeed factors, I can tell you that the reason I and many people I know aren't Republicans is because of two things:

1) Being ignored by the Republican Party. In order to win the support of any group of voters, you have to spend at least a little time with them. Can you think of a group that either political party hopes to get more support from that the party doesn't bother to interact with?

2) Perceptions that the party tolerates racist and/or completely insensitive people. Too many examples to name. I'll eventually put a list together of examples. This has the effect of: 1) undermining any attempts for voter outreach (which there are few of anyway) and 2) damaging the party brand as well as the associations many people have with the word "conservative" - which in turn makes life especially tough for those of us who dare to vote Republican.

I still to this day think that if Mike Huckabee had won the nomination in 2008 that not only would he have beaten Obama but that black support for the GOP would be at about 18-20% now. As the head of the party, he would have been in position to tell the divisive folks to shut it up and would have continued to reach out to everybody. But even now, it's not too late. Someone who matters just needs to make the commitment to actively reach out to everybody and ignore nobody.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

Lastly, on an unrelated note to my earlier posts, here is one more reason why it's not that hard to understand why Obama won and Romney lost. There was a vast difference in the sophistication of the two campaigns. This piece from Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84103.html?hp=r9) is pretty amazing. The Obama folks had an incredible amount of insight about who was going to show up to vote. In some places, their internal polls came within 0.2% of the actual results.

In contrast, the Romney campaign ran into some major problems due to a software program called ORCA, which had never been tested prior to election day and malfunctioned badly when it was turned on, leaving the campaign workers completely blind regarding information about which Romney voters needed to get to the polls (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83653.html). It was by all accounts a disaster.

The contrast between the quality of the two campaign staffs was pretty clear. And so another takeaway from this election is that when 2016 turns around, whoever runs (hopefully Huckabee) needs to have a much better campaign infrastructure than Romney did.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

TVV- thanks as always. It's an occupational hazard and opportunity for me as a Southern Historian to be regularly immersed in discussions of race with fellow scholars and students of myriad backgrounds. One of the most interesting aspects for me is the quality and depth of political/ethnic/sectional socialization and how it effects not only one's self-perception, but one's view of events.

My dissertation was on just how that quality created a cultural/political divide in Florida and played out in fights over the control of the legislature between the rural north Florida, southern native, "Porkchop Gang," (or "Cockroaches" [really Palmetto Bugs which are really big roaches and fly]) and the urban, largely northern immigrants to south Florida, "Roast Beef Boys" (or "Termites").

No divide between these groups was bigger than their dyametrically opposed memory of past events and each side's firm belief that the other "knew the truth" but refused to admit it.

Thank you for giving me more insight into your experiences.

Interestingly enough, but not surprisingly, are perceptions of some of the history we both lived through are divergent.

For example: the "rights" of the non-voting delgates authorized for territories(like Norton in D.C. [which actually isn't a "territory" and therefore had no such non-voting delgate until 1971 when Congress permitted it) were not taken away by the GOP takeover in 1994. They still had all the rights they had ever possessed. But they no longer enjoyed the un-constitutional "right" to vote in the Committe of the Whole on the floor of Congress which had never existed prior to 1993. In 1993, the Democrats (who had just lost 9 seats in the 1992 election but still outnumbered minority Republicans 258 to 176) changed the House rules to allow five Democratic Party "non-voting" delegates the "right" to vote on proceedual votes in the Committee of the Whole. While the votes of "non-voting" delegates (please let that surreal Owealian phrase flit around the mind for a moment) would not be allowed to "determine" the "final" result of a bill, they did. The votes were allowed for such "minor" proceedural votes as the "rule" vote for a proposed bill (how many amendments allowed, time of debate, what amendments will be considered germaine). The Dems, though they still had a huge majority in the chamber, had effectively taken away half of the minimal gains the GOP had made in the 1992 elections. The GOP was furious and impotent to do anything about it.

After the 1994 Election the GOP restored the rule on non-voting delegates to the one that had been in place for every Congress prior to the 1993 Congress.

The Dems then screamed minority voter supression.

In 2006 the Dems took back Congess and restored the 1993 rule.

In 2012 the Rep took back Congress and restored the rule of the first 107 Congresses.

You can tell I don't think the Dem version of history is correct. But even if I had sympathy for the Dem position, I could not begrudge the GOP the sincerity of their outrage.

I am not even aware of the history behind the statement "punished the black caucus."

What I do know about that Caucus is that I find the whole concept offensive, destructive to the public weal, and harmful for the future reduction of racism (especially anti-black racism).

I am personally not a Tancredo fan (though Huck is), but I fully agree with his summary statement at the end of the following "Wiki" (my Bible ) article concerning the racial politics of the Black Caucus:



It is the failure of any voices on the left to even recognize the outrageous and destructive quality of Congressman Clay's comments that we have seen the deepening of the "perception divide" on issues of race.

Where are the calls for Dems to disown the bigotry that resides in the hearts of their own allies and supporters (as it does in the hearts of all mankind)?

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Doc, I agree with you on the CBC and Cohen issue. I was personally horrified when the CBC denied Cohen from joining. I had a huge problem with that. In fact, if I had been a member of Congress at time and had been in the CBC, I would have resigned in protest. You can't complain about bigotry and exclusionism and then practice it yourself.

I said "punish" the CBC because, honestly, I didn't remember the details of what happened then. I shouldn't have written that part without knowing what the specifics were. I remember hearing something about that at the time and tried to look it up but could only remember that there was an issue there. The other things that I wrote are things that I remember well and can speak to in detail. But I'll have to retract the part about "punishing" the CBC because you understand that issue better than I do.

No political caucus or organization should be racially exclusive. It was wrong to not allow blacks into political organizations in the past and it's just as wrong to not allow non-blacks into political organizations now. Anyone who has an interest in addressing some of the unique challenges of African American constituents should be allowed in the CBC. That really ticked me off when it happened ... that was wrong.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

To follow up on the conflicting perceptions of reality and history lets do a side by side:



Has the President, or any members of the Congessional Black Caucus, moved to condemn and separate themselves (and their Party) from the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan?

The Nation of Islam, an organization whose President has called whites, "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet." and "blue eyed devils" Democratic Party ties to the group are quite deep. When members of this group stood in uniform outside of a polling station in Philly (one with a nightstick) and Eric Holder's justice department did nothing, it gave me the impression that this type of thing was no big deal.

NOI is the only Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Group that never seems to require public condemnation and full separation and ostracization by Democrats. It certainly never seems to trigger the you-must-condemn-your-ally-who-has-not-condemned-the-outrageous-third -party sincerity test for Dems the way it does for members of the GOP:

For example: certainly didn't hear any John Brown College, Confederate Flag, Tom Akins, Rush Limbaugh, disassociation demand feeding frenzy by the press this cycle for Obama in relation to his closest ally praising Farrakhan:



Well the nightrider Klan did an excellent job as a “people of faith and community leaders (that had) a role to play in helping to protect our neighborhoods and our citizens.”

And we aren't even talking about how the NOI recieves governmental contracts for providing "security" for public housing. Public Funds for a neo-Klan organization is rightly unthinkable. These kinds of doublestandards reflect the depth of the political socialization divide.

We have condemned and shamed the Klan openly and at length in our soicety. Good. It was a group dedicated to the promotion of a sub-set of Americans based on race at the expense of all others. Until we decide that all groups with such a mission are not worthy of respect, a hand in the public coffers, or understanding for the origins of their twisted worldview, we have no hope of breaking free of the worst kinds of the politics of division.

I stand with Teddy Roosevelt on all this:



But, of course, the academic left says he was only saying this to try to preserve WASP superiority. At which point I give up.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes