Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the "47%"

Posted: 11/8/2012 1:06 PM

Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the "47%" 


You will notice in the right hand column that Pres. is now 3million ahead in the popular vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...kusaolp00000003
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 1:20 PM

Re: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the "47%" 


But it won't be the 47% for long.   Maybe 67% by 2014
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 1:24 PM

Re: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the "47%" 



doreking wrote: But it won't be the 47% for long.   Maybe 67% by 2014
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 1:56 PM

RE: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the 


Well, NM and FL both went blue, so so much for that theory.

It probably has more to do with standards of living, wage scales and where retirees on fixed federal incomes choose to live. So, I guess going by state lines isn't the best way to ascertain voting tendencies based on income tax levels.

Maybe you should look more closely at voting trends based on income levels. I'll wager that in those red states, voting tendencies were more in line with socio-economic strata than geographic.

But don't let me get in the way of your revisionist history lesson. Gotta villify the Republicans, even if they don't win elections.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 2:21 PM

RE: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the 



VUGearhead wrote: Well, NM and FL both went blue, so so much for that theory.

It probably has more to do with standards of living, wage scales and where retirees on fixed federal incomes choose to live. So, I guess going by state lines isn't the best way to ascertain voting tendencies based on income tax levels.

Maybe you should look more closely at voting trends based on income levels. I'll wager that in those red states, voting tendencies were more in line with socio-economic strata than geographic.

But don't let me get in the way of your revisionist history lesson. Gotta villify the Republicans, even if they don't win elections.
I think you're missing the point.  The GOP has a math problem.  It's the same problem that led to such visionaries as Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich, proclaiming that Romney would win the election in the fact of significant polling data to the contrary.  It's now leading people to act like Obama won because of the 47%.  This map is just one example of how that is false.  

Romney obviously is picking up a significant chunk of non-payers too.  Obama finished with less than 47% of the vote in all of the red states on the map except for New Mexico and Florida - and well below 47% in several.  Of course, Obama likely picked up support from the portions of the 47% in these states, but Obama's national majority cannot be explained away using the 47%.

While I agree socioeconomic data is telling, so is racial data.  Obama won 93% of the black vote, 73% of the Asian vote, and 71% of the Hispanic vote.  Conversely, he only won 63% of the under $30,000 income bracket (Romney picked up 2 points from McCain in 2008), and 57% of the $30-50,000 bracket (Obama picked up 2 points here).  Of course, there is a sizable chunk of people earning over $50,000 in the 47%, but that's another issue entirely.  

This is not to say that Romney won the support of the majority of the 47%, so much as it is to say that the entire 47% argument is red herring put forward by a GOP desperate to explain away its current lack of popularity.  I think the GOP's deficit among women (-11%), minorities, and gays (-54%) is far more significant than its falsely magnified deficit among the 47%.

Last edited 11/9/2012 2:22 PM by Dore2004

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 3:01 PM

RE: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the 


Maybe I am missing the point, but it doesn't sound as though we are as far apart as it seems.

I don't hear the Republicans making a big point about the 47%. On the contrary, it was the Democrats who used it as a bashing club to motivate that demographic to their cause. Romney picked up more seniors from that demographic than Obama anticipated, which could explain why Florida was such a close race. It should also be considered that many of those states are bible belt, where conservative social issues (i.e. pro-choice/life) might be a more significant voting criteria than class warfare.

The 47% issue probably played a more significant role in the non-red states among minority voters, than it did for the actual 47%'ers in the south. It's a moot point, anyway, if you can't even motivate your voting block to get out and vote. I think Romney got decimated on voter turnout (or lack thereof) of minorities vs. upper middle-income/caucasian/(whatever you want to label as non-minority).
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/9/2012 4:00 PM

RE: Paul, who receives SS benefits, slams the 



VUGearhead wrote: Maybe I am missing the point, but it doesn't sound as though we are as far apart as it seems.

I don't hear the Republicans making a big point about the 47%. On the contrary, it was the Democrats who used it as a bashing club to motivate that demographic to their cause. Romney picked up more seniors from that demographic than Obama anticipated, which could explain why Florida was such a close race. It should also be considered that many of those states are bible belt, where conservative social issues (i.e. pro-choice/life) might be a more significant voting criteria than class warfare.

The 47% issue probably played a more significant role in the non-red states among minority voters, than it did for the actual 47%'ers in the south. It's a moot point, anyway, if you can't even motivate your voting block to get out and vote. I think Romney got decimated on voter turnout (or lack thereof) of minorities vs. upper middle-income/caucasian/(whatever you want to label as non-minority).
The first two posts basically sum up the extreme I'm bashing and the one you're bashing.  My point is that extremists like doreking and Karl Rove cling to their misconception of the 47% because it is easier than tackling the real problems faced by their party.  While I think Democrats seized on Romney's mistake to motivate segments of their base, I don't think it decided the election.  Likewise, I agree (or at least think I agree) with you that southern whites in the 47% are likely to vote on the basis of social issues.  That's the point I was making - not all non-tax payers are voting for Obama like some in the GOP (not you apparently) want to believe.

I agree that we largely are of the same view regarding demographics.  The real issue for the GOP is that Dick Morris's U.S. electorate dominated by white males is dead, except possibly in the south.  Even there, things are changing demographically.  In four years, this country will only have more minority voters, not fewer.  It will not be long until the GOP can no longer count on reliable states like Arizona, Georgia, and Texas.  The GOP needs to reconstruct or at least position its platform in a way that appeals to minority voters.  Some will suggest that simply means nominating  Marco Rubio, but I think it requires a more fundamental change.  It's not dissimilar from the position the Democrats found themselves in during the 1980s when they went too far to the left.
Reply | Quote