quote:Originally posted by lobo: I don't think that is true. Young white kids rebel against their parents and vote democrat. Young black kids rebel in other ways, not political.
That's not what the studies show.
quote:Over the past half century, scholars have consistently shown that high school and college-age young people generally adopt their parents' partisan identification. If both parents share the same party affiliation, Democrat or Republican, 60 to 65 percent of young people adopt the family partisanship, about 30 percent abandon it for an independent stance and only about 10% join the opposition party.
My Father was republican. My mother is fairly liberal.
I am conservative but not registered with any party. My votes for the last 6 elections:McCain, Bush, Bush, Perot, Perot, Bush.
My Mother voted for Obama and Bush. Before that she was not a US citizen.
My grandparents on my Mom's side are pretty liberal. My grandparents on my Dad's side I don't know. They died when I was very young. The rest of my Dad's siblings are all democrats.
I still don't buy your thesis as the exit polls suggest otherwise:
group %Obama %McCain white 18-29 54 44 white 30-44 41 57 white 45-64 42 56 white 65+ 40 58
black 18-29 95 4 black 30-44 96 4 black 45-64 96 3 Black 65+ 94 6
Your study shows that 40% change parties. That is huge. The exit polls suggest that there is a 1% gap in black young voters and their parents (18-29 vs. 45-64). There is a 12% gap with whites and a 18% gap with latinos.
Why are blacks so different?
My guess is that they think they are victims and blame the republicans for their problems because they have been told so their entire lives.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better historical comparison might be what percentage of Roman Catholics voted for JFK in 1960. Also the first Hispanic candidate for president will get a lot of extra Hispanic votes. And the first Jewish candidate a lot of Jews. But once the novelty of being acknowledged is over, groups tend to go back to voting their interests.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
hobsen, my point is that blacks always vote in large numbers for the dems - as a block. They voted a little bit more for Obama, but they were already at 90% before.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Big generation gap for whites and latinos. Not so much for blacks. Interesting?
Not really since older blacks are the same persons that the republicans decided to drive out of the party a few decades back.
You are confounding multiple factors that one would expect to go in different directions. Older people are in general more likely to be conservative. One would not however expect this trend among older blacks who lived through the civil rights movement and republican policies designed to drive them into the democratic party.
Young people who do not choose the party of their parents, are 3 times more likely to be independent. In this election, independents of all ages were more likely to vote for Obama.
Obama had a strong appeal to young people of all ages.
For whites, all three point to older people being more likely to favor McCain than younger people.. For blacks, none of them would suggest young blacks would vote differently than older blacks.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: hobsen, my point is that blacks always vote in large numbers for the dems - as a block. They voted a little bit more for Obama, but they were already at 90% before.
Well technically it was only 88% in the last election but your point stands.
The problem is we've already answered your question repeatedly. Blacks vote against republicans because republicans intentionally drove them away back in the 60s and 70s. Republicans admitted that. They knew what they were doing. They even predicted that after what they did, they would never get more than 10-20% of the black vote. And "never" was their word not mine.
THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
You keep insisting that there must be another explanation and then asserting that blacks can't think for themselves like other people.
Why do you keep pushing this repugnant racist explanation when presented with hard data that there is a better and more logical alternative?
[ November 06, 2008, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think successful blacks do not change party affiliations because they still retain a strong connection the their roots. Also, they had to fight their way up. They know how important social programs are for their development and see their families still needing that help.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is an interesting point about black churches vs. white churches. Blacks don't seem afraid to cross party lines when the vote is for an issue instead of a candidate - ie the large black vote for prop 8.
That's an interesting view of party lines. I doubt any party was listed next to prop 8.
Prominent members of both parties were featured in ads against it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to go off topic with an actual view from afar, or at least outside of the country
quote: He supports the death penalty for heinous crimes, while acknowledging that capital punishment is likely not a deterrent.
He is opposed to same-sex marriage, though noting that time may prove he's on the wrong side of history on this issue.
He wants more combat troops in Afghanistan, while vowing to take American soldiers out of Iraq within 16 months of assuming office.
He had himself baptized as a Christian in adulthood.
Barack Obama is not the Canadian version of a liberal politician, even while occupying the far left – as a United States senator – of the political spectrum. In Canadian terms, he'd barely qualify as a Red Tory.
This may all underscore how far to the right America has listed in recent years, or how vast the chasm between what much of the world considers progressive and how that term is defined in this country.
An overwhelming majority of Canadians adore Obama, would have swept him into the Oval Office with a record-setting trouncing of the Republican party. Indeed, it often seemed as if Canadians were resentful of the fact they couldn't vote in another nation's election; as if they should be able to impact another's political topography.
...
But, on the testimony as Obama has provided it – in his own words, in two memoirs – he simply is not as perceived by many in his thrall. The fault isn't that he's misrepresented himself; Obama has been quite candid about his beliefs, values and objectives. Yet many seem not to have been listening, or perhaps just tuning out the bits that rankle, parts that don't fit into their idealized characterization of Obama as antidote to what came before.
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own values," he once said.
...
Obama has values. You just might not like them. What he has promised, however, is that he won't be held hostage to his own certainties either. That way lies same-old partisanship and polarized governance.
The difference Obama draws between values and ideology: "Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question."
It is America's business where it decides to go under an Obama administration, no doubt to be influenced by the judges he nominates for the Supreme Court. But Canadians weary of losses in Kandahar might be in for a rude awakening when, as commander-in-chief, this president does exactly as promised: Muscles up the U.S. war against terrorism in Afghanistan, asking for more – not less – from its NATO allies. Obama has been even more hawkish than McCain about running Al Qaeda and Taliban belligerents to ground in their Pakistan sanctuaries.
He has so many promises to keep. Not all will be so sweetly received as getting a puppy for his daughters in the White House.
A Red Tory is a somewhat archaic (and IMHO, missed) political wing of our Conservative party which was known for things like strong federalism, fiscal conservatism, and strong support of a welfare state, yet mostly lacking in the social conservatism that characterizes our modern conservative (and republican) parties.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Ok, so a 40 year old grudge... Any platform issue?
It doesn't work that way. People aren't democrats on the week of the elections only- they stay democrats, and their friends, and their kids become democrats. It's a slow process, and not one defined only by issues.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
