We know that the provisions regarding the identification of voters really do not mention the elections, but what about another liberal point of conversation, that the wine was the wine demographics?
“Revenge of white guys” wrote Liberal Amanda Marcotte that day after the Democrats were decimated throughout the country.
Is it true that the 2012 electorate would bring a better fortune to the Democrats in 2014? He doesn’t really speak Real glowing policy ‘ Let them a trend.
At the beginning President Obama was a bit popular in 2012; It is toxic now. But let’s get to the numbers. Trend wrote [emphasis mine]:
If the electorate from 2014 resembled an electorate in 2012 in terms of breed, only 1.97 percentage points would have shrunk in a republican vote. In other words, in the electorate in 2012, the Republicans won a popular vote for the chamber by 4.5 points, not 6.5 points. This is nothing, as they say, but it still explains only a relatively diminutive share of the difference between the results in 2012 and 2014. In other words, if Obama issued the same voting actions between racial groups in 2012, as democrats would eventually lose, he would lose.
…
The 2014 electorate was actually a bit older than the 2012 electorate. It is not necessarily surprising, considering that The population of the elderly In fact, it is to develop significantly in the next decade. Regardless of this, if we reduce over 65 electorate shares from 22 percent 2014 to 2012, augment 18-24-year share from 7 percent (2014) to 11 percent (2012) and adapt everything between, accordingly, respectively, Republican contracts because of … 1.94 points.
Now you can look at it and say: “Well, it’s four points in total!” The problem with this approach is that a significant double number is happening. Democrats are doing better among newborn voters to a gigantic extent, because this demographic group is less white; The younger white do not vote so differently than the older white. This is not a cumulative exercise.
To do this, we can look at the age -breed commas. This means that the output polls tell us how they voted not only at the age of 18–29, and the African Americans voted, but also how 18-29-year-old African Americans voted (and so on). If these groups proved to be reproduced by the electorate in 2012, the republican margin narrows a little more than when we looked at the race alone or age, but the change is still only about two points.
In other words, Even if the Democrats were reproduced in 2012 in 2014, they would still have a challenging year.
Trede also compared demographic changes at the level of state; Comparison of electorates 2012 and 2014 and stated that the changes are not significant. However, one significant exception is that Thom Tillis would lose to Kay Hagan by a diminutive 3.8 margin. Verdict: Demographic data represented a diminutive part of democratic problems in this cycle.
Finally, Republicans just had better candidates this time.
And what about the demographic system 2016; Shouldn’t the Republicans focus on making profits with Latinos?
Actually it really doesn’t New York Times’ Nate cohn.
As he put it, Republicans, to gain land with Latinos, is not a necessity, but they will make the road of the GOP candidate 2016 to the White House much easier. Republican fixation with better coping with Latinos results from various posthumous analyzes in 2012, which shows that Obama did a bad job among white voters, when he allegedly made “quite well” outside South. But if GOP wants to achieve profits from Latinos, the only state they should focus on is Florida (Via NOW):
[I]N 2016 Latinos will represent only 12 percent of qualifying voters and from 9 to 10 percent of the actual voters. This is a lot, but it is not gigantic enough to grant or refuse to the Republicans of the presidency.
…
Latin voters are disproportionately focused in non -competitive states, such as Texas and California. This makes it arduous for the Republicans to apply for the presidency by focusing on them, because on the battlefield relatively few Latin voters define who wins the election college. Latinos represents over 5 percent of qualifying voters in only three fields of battles: Florida, Nevada and Colorado. As a result, Republicans could completely remove the advantage of Mr. Obama among Latin voters and continued to lose their presidency in 2012, because Mr. Romney would still lose their states such as Virginia and Ohio, where there are very few Latin voters.
…
Republicans do not have a particularly reliable path to the presidency without 29 electoral votes in Florida. The easiest alternative can be for the Republicans to reverse Virginia and Ohio, scale the so -called blue wall in Pennsylvania, and then pick up 12 additional election votes from the combination of Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.
Cohn added that modest improvements can remove Obama’s 1-point advantage, which gave him a state in 2012. But the white participation of voting in Florida is a strange mix of vintage, southern and Jewish, which can be open to a candidacy for Hillary, improvement with latinos completely worthless. Despite this, GOP knows that with this community it is critical, it may not be the approach of “evolution or dying”, which everyone suggests in the media.
And while the president won mainly white states in the north, he actually did badly with the voters of white working class; All regions of the country had the support of Obama White Working Class below 45 percent.
Cohn mentions Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Hampshire as examples mainly of white states in which Obama won in 2012. Obama won a white voice in Iowa [51/47]Oregon [54/44]and New Hampshire [51/47]- and remained competitive in Wisconsin [51/48 Romney] and Minnesota [49/48 Romney]. However, these are states, except for Iowa (he went to Bush in 2004) and New Hampshire*, which have voted for democratic since 1988 – and urban areas in Oregon – established democratic fortress – (Portland) you wore in 2012.
They are also in regions in which Obama’s participation in the voting of a white working class is the highest, although below 50 percent.
As I mentioned in the previous post, the voices of white working -class are a huge block of voters – and breaks for Republicans. The statement that Obama had catastrophic results with white in the south is true, but goes beyond this region (via via New republic):
Many democrats would not have to face this monumental challenge of the organization, hoping that the existing Obama coalition and demographic changes in America will prove to be sufficient to choose the president in 2016, maintaining the Senate and weakening GOP control over the House of Representatives. But the harsh reality for democrats is that they cannot achieve all three of these goals without increasing the support among the white Americans of the working class – and if the democrats repeat themselves that “the problem is only the South”, this support can reduce.
So it seems that although the Republicans really can’t need so much Latin support (GOP should go through this voting block, democrats definitely need to find ways to restore more white voters of the working class, which is quite homework, which is quite homework.
Having said, everything can happen. We have some time before 2016.
*New Hampshire also voted for Bush 43 in 2000, but he returned in his democratic ways in 2004
