The Two Least Successful Groups in Society Put Obama in the White House

[Lakhota]

According to the exit polling numbers, Obama won mainly--not entirely, but mainly--by carrying the two bottom income groups by 21.5%, and these two groups accounted for 41% of votes cast. He lost among the four other income groups by an average of 8.5%, and those groups accounted for 59% of votes cast. But he made up for his 8.5% loss in the 59% block by winning the 41% block by 21.5%, a landslide margin of victory.

Obama also won handily among high school dropouts, 64% to 35%, and these voters accounted for about 2-3% of votes cast (I suspect this group mostly overlaps with the bottom two income groups).

This is not to say that everyone who voted for Obama is uneducated or poor. It is to say that Obama would have lost if he had not carried the two lowest income groups by landslide margins. So the least successful among us were the decisive factor in Obama's victory.

Here's the breakdown:

Income....Obama's Margin of Victory
------------------------------------------
0-30K..........+28
30-49K........+15
50-99K...........-6
100-199K.....-10
200-249K.......-5
250K+..........-13

Income.....Percentage of Votes
---------------------------------------------
0-30K..........20%
30-49K........21%
50-99K........31%
100-199K....21%
200-249K......3%
250K+...........4%

It's as if a company's CEO were elected, not by a majority of the most educated and successful people in the company, but by winning a huge majority among the janitorial staff, the new admin assistants, and the new interns. Would you have much confidence in that company's future if its CEO were elected by such groups?

so did EDUCATED women.

so did younger people.

and gays (who have the highest per capita income in the country as a group)

i'm sorry the whole old white man thing isn't working out for you anymore.

does it hurt to be so ignorant?

All these arguments are strawman arguments. I said that not everyone who voted for Obama is poor or uneducated. I stipulated that. But you simply ignore that qualifier and act as though I said the opposite.

The fact remains that Obama owes his victory largely to the two least successful groups in society. If he had not carried those two groups by landslide margins, he would have lost.

Please define "successful"...

 

[GuyPinestra]

so did EDUCATED women.

so did younger people.

and gays (who have the highest per capita income in the country as a group)

i'm sorry the whole old white man thing isn't working out for you anymore.

does it hurt to be so ignorant?

All these arguments are strawman arguments. I said that not everyone who voted for Obama is poor or uneducated. I stipulated that. But you simply ignore that qualifier and act as though I said the opposite.

The fact remains that Obama owes his victory largely to the two least successful groups in society. If he had not carried those two groups by landslide margins, he would have lost.

Please define "successful"...

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

 

[Care4all]

All these arguments are strawman arguments. I said that not everyone who voted for Obama is poor or uneducated. I stipulated that. But you simply ignore that qualifier and act as though I said the opposite.

The fact remains that Obama owes his victory largely to the two least successful groups in society. If he had not carried those two groups by landslide margins, he would have lost.

Please define "successful"...

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

then why did the op say an individual even making $49k is ''the least successful''?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please define "successful"...

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

then why did the op say an individual even making $49k is ''the least successful''?

Because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

[candycorn]

$7.1B for exploration alone...or 23.2 times more than low income persons get for Title X family planning. That comes from Wiki Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no $7.3 billion for exploration. That's commie propaganda. They attempt to call every legitimate business expense a "subsidy." Note that the source of this claim is the Environmental Law Institute. Anyone who believes that outfit is an unbiased source is terminally gullible.

Citing Wiki...feel free to change it. The entire subsidy is much larger.

 

[candycorn]

I'm all for that, how much money will it save?

Does that include the subsidies to the little drilling companies, the 'wildcatters' who normally employ less than 100 people?

How much money will that save?

$7.1B for exploration alone...or 23.2 times more than low income persons get for Title X family planning. That comes from Wiki Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And $5 billion for ethanol... does that go, too?

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

Not sure. Whomever they are, by Conservative logic, are lazy fucks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All these arguments are strawman arguments. I said that not everyone who voted for Obama is poor or uneducated. I stipulated that. But you simply ignore that qualifier and act as though I said the opposite.

The fact remains that Obama owes his victory largely to the two least successful groups in society. If he had not carried those two groups by landslide margins, he would have lost.

Please define "successful"...

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

Then by that standard the majority of those who voted for Obama are successful.

 

[bodecea]

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

then why did the op say an individual even making $49k is ''the least successful''?

Because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I will agree on that.

 

[Lakhota]

"Happy" is also a synonym for "successful"... so are "unbeaten" and "undefeated"...

 

[Lakhota]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

There is no $7.3 billion for exploration. That's commie propaganda. They attempt to call every legitimate business expense a "subsidy." Note that the source of this claim is the Environmental Law Institute. Anyone who believes that outfit is an unbiased source is terminally gullible.

Citing Wiki...feel free to change it. The entire subsidy is much larger.

Wiki cited the "Environmental Law Institute." Of course, you didn't even read your Wiki cite. There is no "real subsidy." Deducting a legitimate business expense is not a subsidy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to the exit polling numbers, Obama won mainly--not entirely, but mainly--by carrying the two bottom income groups by 21.5%, and these two groups accounted for 41% of votes cast. He lost among the four other income groups by an average of 8.5%, and those groups accounted for 59% of votes cast. But he made up for his 8.5% loss in the 59% block by winning the 41% block by 21.5%, a landslide margin of victory.

Obama also won handily among high school dropouts, 64% to 35%, and these voters accounted for about 2-3% of votes cast (I suspect this group mostly overlaps with the bottom two income groups, so I won't count them as a separate group--but I thought it was worth noting Obama's huge margin of victory among high school dropouts).

This is not to say that everyone who voted for Obama is uneducated or poor. It is to say that Obama would have lost if he had not carried the two lowest income groups by landslide margins. So the least successful among us were the decisive factor in Obama's victory.

Here's the breakdown:

Income....Obama's Margin of Victory
------------------------------------------
0-30K..........+28
30-49K........+15
50-99K...........-6
100-199K.....-10
200-249K.......-5
250K+..........-13

Income.....Percentage of Votes
---------------------------------------------
0-30K..........20%
30-49K........21%
50-99K........31%
100-199K....21%
200-249K......3%
250K+...........4%

It's as if a company's CEO were elected, not by a majority of the most educated and successful people in the company, but by winning a huge majority among the janitorial staff, the new admin assistants, and the new interns. Would you have much confidence in that company's future if its CEO were elected by such groups?

What's your point?

 

[candycorn]

There is no $7.3 billion for exploration. That's commie propaganda. They attempt to call every legitimate business expense a "subsidy." Note that the source of this claim is the Environmental Law Institute. Anyone who believes that outfit is an unbiased source is terminally gullible.

Citing Wiki...feel free to change it. The entire subsidy is much larger.

Wiki cited the "Environmental Law Institute." Of course, you didn't even read your Wiki cite. There is no "real subsidy." Deducting a legitimate business expense is not a subsidy.

Distinction w/o a difference.

 

[francoHFW]

Romney got 100% of brainwashed moron dupes of the idiotic greedy rich....

 

[bripat9643]

Please define "successful"...

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

Then by that standard the majority of those who voted for Obama are successful.

Wrong. Government does a large proportion of feeding, clothing and educating their families.

 

[bripat9643]

Citing Wiki...feel free to change it. The entire subsidy is much larger.

Wiki cited the "Environmental Law Institute." Of course, you didn't even read your Wiki cite. There is no "real subsidy." Deducting a legitimate business expense is not a subsidy.

Distinction w/o a difference.

You're the one who attempted to make the distinction. If you're referring to the "real subsidy," the distinction does make a difference. Deductions for legitimate business expenses are not subsidies. Only economic morons and propagandists who don't give a rats ass about the truth fail to understand that.

 

[J.E.D]

Feeding, clothing and educating oneself and one's family, for starters...

Then by that standard the majority of those who voted for Obama are successful.

Wrong. Government does a large proportion of feeding, clothing and educating their families.

Poor Texans voted for Obama?

 

[tinydancer]

Hey when you get a $138 dollars a month from Obama's stash.....you get the votes.

Can you beleive that? The swine get $138 a month in food stamps alone. You libs are pigs.

 

[tinydancer]

Then by that standard the majority of those who voted for Obama are successful.

Wrong. Government does a large proportion of feeding, clothing and educating their families.

Poor Texans voted for Obama?

No. You suck the tit of a government who can't support you. Too funny.

 

[bripat9643]

Then by that standard the majority of those who voted for Obama are successful.

Wrong. Government does a large proportion of feeding, clothing and educating their families.

Poor Texans voted for Obama?

You think they didn't? Plenty of poor Texans are Hispanics.