Tag Archives: election

Women Don’t Like the Republican Party? Really?

17 Nov

An insightful analysis of the so-called “gender gap” in politics by Kay Hymowitz in City Journal exposes the faulty conclusions of those who claim the Republican Party is out of touch and out of favor with women.  Titled “The Misunderstood Gender Gap”, you can see the whole piece at http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

Excerpts:   [Emphasis is mine]

There’s no denying that if you put all individuals with female reproductive parts into a single category, more of them voted for President Obama (55 percent) than for Mitt Romney (44 percent). Men, by contrast, went for Romney, 52 percent to 45 percent; hence the press’s conviction that an important gender gap exists.  .  .  .

The truth, though, is that other demographic characteristics have considerably more significance. A widely reported example is marital status. Fifty-three percent of married female voters went for Romney. Among single women, by contrast, Romney was about as popular as an extra 20 pounds; a mere 31 percent supported him. The gap between married and single women, then, is wider than the male-female gap that the media have been touting.  .  .  .

But the obvious reason for the marriage gap is that for several decades now, married women have become likelier to be white, educated, affluent, and older—demographic groups that leaned Republican in this election. Romney lost the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote, while he won the college-educated vote (though not post-grads), the votes of those making over $50,000 a year, and the votes of older Generation X-ers, Baby Boomers, and voters over 65. In other words, married women voted less as part of a sisterhood than as part of a cohort of white people holding college diplomas, earning more than $50,000 a year, and wearing reading glasses.

Similarly, unmarried women voted just the way you’d expect them to, considering their age, income, education, race, and ethnicity. A large number of unmarried women are single mothers—and minorities are disproportionately represented among that population.  .  .  . Single mothers are also likely to be younger, less educated, and poorer than married women are. Sure enough, all these groups went Democratic in this election.  .  .

The chatter about the “largest gender gap on record” ignores one last surprising fact: women, like men, were less likely to vote for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. The gender gap expanded not because more women went blue but because so many men switched to red. Obama won the male vote in 2008 by 2 points; this year, again, Romney won among all men, 52 percent to 45 percent.

So yes, taken as a group, women vote more Democratic than men do. But that has little to do with their sex, which is why analysts would be wise to pay a little less mind to the gap.

[End of excerpts]


The Role of Race in the Election — What Does This Mean for the Future?

16 Nov

From Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard, 11/14/2012.  Food for thought.

Excerpt:  [Emphasis is mine]

But one thing jumped out at me in the exit polls as being cause for real concern. And that’s the tremendous influence of race in this last election.
If you listened to the morning-after commentary about the election, you heard all the usual litany of Democratic dominance. Obama won women (55 percent to 44 percent), young people (60 percent to 37 percent), even Catholics (50 percent to 48 percent). But when you broke these top-line numbers down you saw enormous racial cleavages.

For instance Obama lost white women by a good margin (42 percent to 56 percent). Same thing for young white people and white Catholics. Which means that when you look at the numbers for minority groups in these cohorts, they broke for Obama by enormous margins. In every one of those groups—women, youth, Catholic—the minority cohorts broke for Obama by 80 percent or more. (Save young Hispanics, who “only” broke for Obama 74 percent to 23 percent.)

What that suggests is that we’re living in a world where, in terms of politics, racial identity is overwhelming every other bit of voters’ demographic identity. Pollsters and demographers have long been able to ask people a battery of questions to figure out how they’ll vote: Where do you live? How old are you? How much money do you make? Where do you go to church, and how often? Are you married? Do you have kids? It used to be that if you got all of that information about a person, you could make a pretty good, educated guess about their politics.

The evidence from this election suggests that we may be moving toward a point where we can replace that entire battery with a single question: What race are you?

I don’t know about you, but I find this deeply depressing. More so—much more so—than the actual result of the election.

[End of excerpts]

Demographics to Ring the Death Knell of Republican Party?

16 Nov

Sorry, but I must suggest the thoughts of Thomas Sowell to you once again.  I give Dr. Sowell a lot of credibility partly because he seems to very effectively reduce issues to their simple logical components while keeping name-calling to a minimum.  I give special attention to his essays that reference how to pull minorities out of the lower economic classes because he happens to be one of the rarest of American thinkers – the black conservative economist.

You can see the rest of this essay at http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/is-demography-destiny.html

Excerpts:  [Emphasis is mine]

An alternative way to make inroads into the overwhelming majority of minority votes for Democrats would be for the Republicans to articulate a coherent case for their principles and the benefits that those principles offer to all Americans.

But the Republicans’ greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles— and the track record of those principles— to either white or non-white voters.,

Very few people know, for example, that the gap between black and white incomes narrowed during the Reagan administration and widened during the Obama administration.

This was not because of Republican policies designed specifically for blacks, but because free market policies create an economy in which all people can improve their economic situation.

Conversely, few policies have had such a devastating effect on the job opportunities of minority youths as minimum wage laws, which are usually pushed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. But these facts do not “speak for themselves.” Somebody has to cite the facts and take the trouble to show why unemployment among minority youths skyrocketed when minimum wage increases priced them out of jobs.

The loss of income from an entry-level job is only part of the loss sustained by minority young people. Work experience at even an entry-level job is a valuable asset, as a stepping stone to progressively higher level jobs. Moreover, nobody gains from having a huge number of idle youths hanging out on the streets, least of all minority communities.

Labor unions push minimum wage laws to insulate their members from the competition of younger workers, and Democratic politicians are heavily dependent on union support. For the same reason, Democrats have to go along with teachers’ unions that treat schools as places to guarantee their members jobs, rather than to provide the quality education so much needed to rise out of poverty.

What Democrats cannot say under these conditions is what Republicans are free to say— even if Republicans have seldom taken advantage of that freedom to make inroads into minority voting blocs. Inroads are all they need. If the black vote for Democrats falls to 70 percent, the Democrats are in deep trouble.

But if Republicans continue inarticulate, then it is they who are in big trouble. More important, so is the country.

[End of Excerpt]

‘Nough said.

The Secret of Obama’s Success

16 Nov

A couple of excerpts from Thomas Sowell’s latest essay.  See the complete column at



.  .  .  . One of the secrets of Barack Obama’s success is his ability to say things that will sound both plausible and inspiring to uninformed people, even when they sound ridiculous to people who know the facts. Apparently he believes the former outnumber the latter, and the election results suggest that he may be right.

Since most of the media will never expose Obama’s fallacies and falsehoods, it is all the more important for Republicans to do so themselves.  .  .  .

It is not necessary to explode every single lie put out by liberal Democrats. All that is necessary is to thoroughly discredit a few of their key claims, exposing them as liars.

What is even more necessary is for Republicans themselves to understand the urgent need to do so, for their own sake and— more important— for the country’s sake.  .  .  .

[End of excerpts]

Nothing earthshaking here, but one of the things I really like about Dr. Sowell’s work is how he cuts through the convoluted, pseudo-intellectual arguments and simply states his case.

Why, Why, Why? EVERYone Seems to Know

9 Nov

Why did the Republicans lose the presidential election, when it SEEMS so obvious that Obama has done a crummy job of managing the country and economy?  So far, we have heard a hundred different contributing reasons.

Problem: To one extent or another, all the expressed reasons contributed to the loss.  Dominance of mass media support for Obama — yes.  Immigration policy — yes.  Democratic attacks and lies — yes.  Misinformation re: education — yes.  Barak and Michelle are black — yes.  Obama is perceived as “cool” — absolutely.  Romney looks “stiff” — yes.  Perception of Republicans as the party of the rich — yes.  Hating 47 %-ers — yep.  Being against the poor — that’s us.  Hate women — yep.  Entertainers “singing” the praises of Obama — yes.  People loving Dems for give-aways — yes.  Republicans unable to take offensive, always acting/speaking defensively — yup.  Dems used technology better — yes.  Rabid positions on abortion — yup.  Unexpectedly high turnout of Dems, lower turnout of Reps — yes.  Obama first response to Hurricane Sandy — yes.  Chris Christie’s response to Obama’s response to Sandy — absolutely.

Even pro-Obama slants to TV dramas and sitcoms — yes-yes.

And you can add more, I’m sure.  The impact of some of these factors has been underestimated, and for some the impact has been overestimated.  Who knows where the “truth” lies.

Here’s what I think.  I think Americans are so pliable and impressionable that virtually anything will affect at least some small group of people.  And cumulative small effects add up to large effects.

I would even guess that the use of “blue” as representative of Democrats and “red” as representative of Republicans affects the vote of some number of Americans (blue is a more friendly color than red — and China and the Soviets were called the Reds — “boo” on red).

Sound cynical?  Sorry.  My faith in the American people making decisions based upon rational consideration of national and international current and future issues and conditions is at a new low — which I didn’t think was possible.

And I’m not just speaking of Democrats . . . .


America Is Really Two Americas?

6 Nov

Michael Barone, a political analyst for the Washington Examiner, just published an interesting essay titled “America Is Two Countries Not on Speaking Terms”.  Excerpts are below, but if you wish to read the entire column, go to



.  .  .  whether Barack Obama is re-elected to a second term or Mitt Romney is elected the 45th president, the contours of their support during this fiercely fought campaign show that we live in Two Americas.  .  .  .

We tend to choose the America that is culturally congenial. Most people in the San Francisco Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, even for much better money. Most Metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.

There are plenty of smart and creative and successful people in both Americas. But they don’t like to mix with each other these days.  .  .  .

One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable on average, skeptical of business and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes.  .  .  .

As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.  .  .  .

Now the Two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the Two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

[End of excerpts]

Thomas Sowell in Good Form

6 Nov

Two more excellent essays by Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.  He happens also to be that rare entity, the black conservative economist.

I cannot do them justice by excerpting, as is my usual posting process, so I urge you to go read them in their entirety at