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

[J.E.D]

But the old man white thing is working very we'll for us. THAT'S the real issue. Unemployment is much higher for blacks and Latinos that it is for whites. Whites have been under the national average unemployment rate all this time. I bet you didn't known this. But hey, Obama won. I can only say this... Sometimes when you win you really lose.

Obama's win is really a loss. Whatever you need to tell yourself, champ

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

But the old man white thing is working very we'll for us. THAT'S the real issue. Unemployment is much higher for blacks and Latinos that it is for whites. Whites have been under the national average unemployment rate all this time. I bet you didn't known this. But hey, Obama won. I can only say this... Sometimes when you win you really lose.

Really? Now I am part of that group. And until the GOP ceases to let the extremists in the party set the agenda, no one with an R after their name will get my vote at any level of government. So this old white guy with a 100k income will continue to vote for progressive liberals and continue to give you heartburn as we win more elections due to the changing demographics in this nation.

 

[editec]

Where are these numbers coming from?

Posting this data without citing a source doesn't do much for its credibility.


Source please?

 

[SniperFire]

And you don't think that the "successful" people who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to Romney/Right wing Super PACs were doing that or attempting to sway others to do so? If you really do think that these people are just concerned citizens.... that's fine. Humorous but fine. It also reveals that you're not very sophisticated politically.

Anyway, the "problem" is still there for 2016. What you going to do about it? More photoshopping? Yeah...that'll work.

I am not sure.

What do you think can be done about lazy ***** voting themselves more things from the gubmint which cannot possibly be afforded?

You can start by rejecting the premise since it's not true.

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy ***** are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

 

[jillian]

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.

but they're not strawmen. it responds to your implication which repeats the same dishonest meme that only poor people vote democratic. it's silly. it's dishonest.

perhaps next time, your party will figure out that there are more than old white men and religious zealots in the country.

 

[mikegriffith1]

but they're not strawmen. it responds to your implication which repeats the same dishonest meme that only poor people vote democratic. it's silly. it's dishonest.

perhaps next time, your party will figure out that there are more than old white men and religious zealots in the country.

You're too fixated on repeating talking points to engage in substantive dialogue on this matter. You are simply ignoring my actual words and keep responding to things I have not said, because you refuse to concede the self-evidently correct major point: that Obama would have lost if the two least economically successful groups in society had not voted for him by landslide margins.

Every other income group voted for Romney. Maybe because they didn't want 4 more years of the worst economic growth over a 4-year period since the Great Depression. Maybe because they did not want 4 more years of virtually zero net job growth (the number of jobless people in January 2009 was 12.3 million; today it is . . . 12.3 million, as of last month's Labor Department employment report). Maybe because they didn't want 4 more years of trillion-plus deficits and more shattering all records for debt accumulation (Obama has piled up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years: $5.5 trillion vs. Bush's $5.1 trillion).

But such facts went in one ear and out the other of the vast majority of voters in the bottom two income groups. Again, it's like a company's rotten CEO getting reelected thanks to huge majorities from the janitorial staff, the new admin assistants, and the new interns, because he's given them raises and promised them more goodies if they'd vote for him.

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

Hey we are not all born to wealth.


Most of the American people are NOT evil because they have not made their first million.


blaming and shaming people for NOT being millionaires is pretty stupid.


I know its what some of the wealthy want done in this country so they can remain the few who are over the million mark.

That money goes alot further when everyone else is desperate and kept poor.


It just doesnt make for a very smart plan for the vast majority of people who live in this Democracy.

enjoy your 1% worship.


Lots of fools worshiped the Kings who owned their lives.

They were just as foolish as you are

 

[mikegriffith1]

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?

Hey we are not all born to wealth.


Most of the American people are NOT evil because they have not made their first million.


blaming and shaming people for NOT being millionaires is pretty stupid.


I know its what some of the wealthy want done in this country so they can remain the few who are over the million mark.

That money goes alot further when everyone else is desperate and kept poor.

It just doesnt make for a very smart plan for the vast majority of people who live in this Democracy.

enjoy your 1% worship.

Lots of fools worshiped the Kings who owned their lives.

They were just as foolish as you are

Another giant strawman reply, and obviously based on a rather far-left ideology.

You can't claim to love workers and jobs and then turn around and denigrate and choke the people who provide jobs to the poor and the middle class, i.e., the rich. Nearly all poor people work for people who are much more successful than they are, i.e., rich people.

In your mind, a person is only successful by exploiting others, which I guess is why you seem to hate successful people.

I don't "worship" any rich man, but I do appreciate that in most cases rich people are rich for good reasons and that the last thing we should be doing is punishing them for being successful.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And I just have to add this: Over the years my wife and I have tried to help a number of poor people, privately and through our church, and in most cases--not all, but most--as we got to know them it was easy to see that they were poor because of their own bad choices and/or laziness. Many of them did not take high school seriously. Many of them have made some of the dumbest life decisions possible. You still care about them and wish them well, but we learned early on that simply giving them money or goods was only putting a very temporary band-aid on the real problem.

People in school do not all perform the same, and some do poorly and others drop out. People in life do not all perform the same, and some make dumb decisions that cost them dearly and others prefer to try to live off other people's money.

 

[candycorn]

I am not sure.

What do you think can be done about lazy ***** voting themselves more things from the gubmint which cannot possibly be afforded?

You can start by rejecting the premise since it's not true.

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy ***** are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

 

[candycorn]

but they're not strawmen. it responds to your implication which repeats the same dishonest meme that only poor people vote democratic. it's silly. it's dishonest.

perhaps next time, your party will figure out that there are more than old white men and religious zealots in the country.

You're too fixated on repeating talking points to engage in substantive dialogue on this matter. You are simply ignoring my actual words and keep responding to things I have not said, because you refuse to concede the self-evidently correct major point: that Obama would have lost if the two least economically successful groups in society had not voted for him by landslide margins.

Every other income group voted for Romney. Maybe because they didn't want 4 more years of the worst economic growth over a 4-year period since the Great Depression. Maybe because they did not want 4 more years of virtually zero net job growth (the number of jobless people in January 2009 was 12.3 million; today it is . . . 12.3 million, as of last month's Labor Department employment report). Maybe because they didn't want 4 more years of trillion-plus deficits and more shattering all records for debt accumulation (Obama has piled up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years: $5.5 trillion vs. Bush's $5.1 trillion).

But such facts went in one ear and out the other of the vast majority of voters in the bottom two income groups. Again, it's like a company's rotten CEO getting reelected thanks to huge majorities from the janitorial staff, the new admin assistants, and the new interns, because he's given them raises and promised them more goodies if they'd vote for him.

Does it not indicate to you that, perhaps, the economy isn't or wasn't the only issue on the minds of the plurality of voters?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

And?

That’s the nature of the democratic process, the United States is not ruled by the wealthy elite.

Your premise is also predicated on the fallacy that income is an indicator of intelligence, knowledge, and success – it is not.

Many low-income people are intelligent, knowledgeable, and capable of voting in an informed manner.

Last, what should be inferred from your premise, that only those of a certain income level be allowed to vote, those with a certain IQ, that an intelligence test should be administered before voting, or perhaps returning to the old criterion that one must be a property owner to vote.

 

[bodecea]

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?

They are so butthurt over this. They bought into the Romney's going to win mantra so heavily that they are still shell shocked.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

They are so butthurt over this. They bought into the Romney's going to win mantra so heavily that they are still shell shocked.

A variation on the tired and inane theme that Romney lost because the voters are ‘stupid.’

 

[regent]

Some people cannot seem to understand that all people do not want to spend their lives trying to be another Donald Trump, many are content and feel successful by having a job, raising a family, serving in the military, paying their taxes and watching football on TV. These types of people are labeled losers by the Romneys and not real Americans. I am happy for rich people, their use of America has been to make, or inherit, big bucks, so now they should pay their share of the taxes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Some people cannot seem to understand that all people do not want to spend their lives trying to be another Donald Trump, many are content and feel successful by having a job, raising a family, serving in the military, paying their taxes and watching football on TV. These types of people are labeled losers by the Romneys and not real Americans. I am happy for rich people, their use of America has been to make, or inherit, big bucks, so now they should pay their share of the taxes.

They do.

 

[J.E.D]

You can start by rejecting the premise since it's not true.

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy ***** are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

Yep...and tax breaks for shipping jobs over seas...corporate jets...increase the capital gains tax.

But you'll never convince a far-rightist like HyperLiar. To him, the people who paid into Soc Sec, the people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid -- whether they're poor, elderly, veterans or disabled -- are lazy moochers who should pay more or have the programs cut that they rely upon; but the rich people who make money off of money they've already made or inherited, and who pay less of an effective tax rate on that money than average working Americans do, are stand-up people who deserve our utmost respect and should never NEVER be asked to pay more. To people like him, the rich are to be admired and given advantages that the rest of us don't have. He hopes to one day be like them; he just doesn't get that they don't want him to be like them; so, they'll keep buying politicians who will ensure that he won't ever enjoy the advantages that they do.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

Two different ways to look at this. You can look at it from the viewpoint that these people are all lazy bastards just wanting a handout, or you can view them as people who are hoping for a better opportunity and don't see that being offered by the far right. What is interesting is that most people who are in those higher income groups have never felt the pain of true poverty as they grew up in middle or upper income families and had many advantages from the beginning. Most of those in the lower income brackets came from homes where their parents struggled and may even have been on government assistance for a big percentage of their lives. As kids, these people were sent to the worst schools and lived in the worst neighborhoods.

It's easy to see things in black and white and just say that those people are lazy and all they want is a handout. Unfortunately, it's not so easy for those who actually are living those lives, and it's not always just about trying harder as those on the right will tell us. Yes, everyone has the opportunity to succeed in the US, but please do not kid yourself into thinking that the opportunity is equal to everyone.

 

[SniperFire]

You can start by rejecting the premise since it's not true.

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy ***** are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

No, I am talking about free handouts to lazy ***** who contribute nothing to society, not those who work hard and invest in bringing us our energy.

You know, I am talking about the free handouts to the core lazy-ass Obama voter.

You going to cut food stamps? Obama Phones? Tell us!

 

[sitarro]

That is ridiculous. But I can be convinced. So tell us, which free gubmint programs to lazy ***** are the Democrats clamoring to cut?

Getting rid of the subsidy to oil companies.

Yep...and tax breaks for shipping jobs over seas...corporate jets...increase the capital gains tax.

But you'll never convince a far-rightist like HyperLiar. To him, the people who paid into Soc Sec, the people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid -- whether they're poor, elderly, veterans or disabled -- are lazy moochers who should pay more or have the programs cut that they rely upon; but the rich people who make money off of money they've already made or inherited, and who pay less of an effective tax rate on that money than average working Americans do, are stand-up people who deserve our utmost respect and should never NEVER be asked to pay more. To people like him, the rich are to be admired and given advantages that the rest of us don't have. He hopes to one day be like them; he just doesn't get that they don't want him to be like them; so, they'll keep buying politicians who will ensure that he won't ever enjoy the advantages that they do.

Your envy is showing joey.