The vital statistics

[Gob]

Analysis.

[Guinevere]

And yet, when applied, other than my gender (and of course the fact that I've already lived through Romney rule) I should have voted for Mittens. Clearly there is more at work than just some demographics.

[Joe Guy]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Is it not a bit telling that values, leadership and the vision thing were swamped by "cares about me" - i.e. free health care for Freddy Freeloader

I didn't say - it was one of Shaw's

Meade

[Guinevere]

Of course it wasn't "cares about me" it was "cares about people like me" which is significantly different. As opposed to Mittens, who wrote off half of the country in one privileged and entitled sneer.

[rubato]

And yet, when applied, other than my gender (and of course the fact that I've already lived through Romney rule) I should have voted for Mittens. Clearly there is more at work than just some demographics.

When you divide things up in one way it obscures the fact that you can just as well divide them up in others. In this case, many others.

And it is difficult, even when you know better, not to have some slight hint of something like causation taint your view of these things.

When I look at these numbers I'm surprised at how many people are voting so directly against their own interests. I can see 5-20% of women backing Romney because they are in an economic class which leads them to think they can always buy their own healthcare, birth control, or abortions. But the remaining 20% + voting for Romney makes no sense. He will try to take away all access to HC, birth control, and safe abortions (except for the rich who have always had the means to buy them).

But there is no logical reason for people making $50,000 to $100,000 to be backing a party which has selectively hurt them and their children and promised to continue to do so. The debts from the billions borrowed per year to further enrich millionaires will fall heaviest on this group; who don't know it, but are 1 health crisis away from bankruptcy, even if they have insurance.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

US President Barack Obama has won the presidential vote in Florida - widening his electoral victory margin over Republican rival, Mitt Romney.

The vote count in the only state which had not declared a result from Tuesday's election gave Mr Obama 50% to Mr Romney's 49.1%, according to Florida state department figures.

Mr Obama has now won 332 electoral college votes - Mr Romney has 206.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Romney gets 38% of the EC - and I predicted 34% back in April and you all scoffed. It was a landslide I tell you; a landslide with Romney buried at the bottom of it.

But as long as Obama cares about "people like me" - not me but just people like me - all will be well. Values, leadership, vision - who cares as long as people like me get theirs?

The US electorate - ya gotta love 'em!

[Guinevere]

Go ahead General, and ignore everything I said -- and everything Romney said. If it makes you feel better to join him in sneering at the "American electorate" then go ahead.

Meanwhile, more analysis I saw today shows that not just the wealthiest states voted for Obama, but 8/10 of the wealthiest counties voted for him as well. Seems to me there is far more driving those voters than just concerns about "people like me" given the Romney base and the stats set forth above.

[Gob]

As opposed to Mittens, who wrote off half of the country in one privileged and entitled sneer.

That was superb though, you have to admit!! What does he do for an encore, have gay sex with an underaged illegal immigrant live on Operah?

[Joe Guy]

Oprah...

[Gob]

You say Oprah, I say Operah, lets call the whole thing off......

[MajGenl.Meade]

Go ahead General, and ignore everything I said -- and everything Romney said. If it makes you feel better to join him in sneering at the "American electorate" then go ahead.

Meanwhile, more analysis I saw today shows that not just the wealthiest states voted for Obama, but 8/10 of the wealthiest counties voted for him as well. Seems to me there is far more driving those voters than just concerns about "people like me" given the Romney base and the stats set forth above.

Ah not quite Gwen - I'm poking fun at that final "statistic" in the OP. But I did try hard to ignore everything Romney said. And I did know Obama was going to trounce him and came -this- close to voting for POTUS.

[rubato]

Go ahead General, and ignore everything I said -- and everything Romney said. If it makes you feel better to join him in sneering at the "American electorate" then go ahead.

Meanwhile, more analysis I saw today shows that not just the wealthiest states voted for Obama, but 8/10 of the wealthiest counties voted for him as well. Seems to me there is far more driving those voters than just concerns about "people like me" given the Romney base and the stats set forth above.

Because many people who are today very well-off know that "people like me" means people working full-time making minimum wage. But "people like me" does not mean the plutocrats who shit on 47% of the country and call them leeches.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

To me, the interesting points on the graph are that a majority of Catholics voted for Barry and, if I may dare to point it out, the older you were, the the more likely to vote for the adult.

The Catholic Church came as close to a full-court press supporting Romney as I have seen since Kennedy in 1960. Every Catholic church in the country had communication from both the pulpit and the bulletin that we MUST NOT vote for a candidate who supports (among other things) abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, and we MUST NOT support an administration that requires Catholic hospitals (which are self-insured) to pay for abortions, sterilizations, and artificial birth control.

It apparently had no effect.

"Credit" the Hispanics if you must (without them, this statistic would surely have gone the other way), but this is a "gob-smack" to the U.S. Catholic Church and its Bishops.

[Guinevere]

If that's true that EVERY Catholic Church in the country was involved in active political lobbying (and considering the source, who knows -- but even if less than EVERY) then it is time the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status be reviewed and revoked.

[Grim Reaper]

It apparently had no effect.

It's almost like people voted for the candidate who they preferred and not the one who old bigots told them to vote for.

[Big RR]

Guin--it's wroth looking at, but aren't church's covered under 501(c)(3) and allowed to endorse political positions (as a matter of free speech), but not candidates? This seems to be a close question, but endorsing certain political positions is not the same as supporting a candidate.

[Guinevere]

BigRR, its a matter of degree. If, per the assertion made, ALL the churches were doing it, and the message had the effect of endorsing one candidate over the other, even if indirect, then that's unallowed political activity. They are required to be non-partisan and even-handed in their "educational" attempts.

From the IRS website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

[Big RR]

Guin--that's true, but I do think churches have a protected right to preach their doctrine as well, so long as it is done in a way that does not directly endorse a candidate. So preaching that abortion, or requiring catholic organizations to provide birth control coverage to their employees, is wrong is probably within their allowed activities, while saying vote for romney to prevent this would not be. I think we'd need a lot more speifics before we know which way a court would rule.

From the IRS regs:
IRS regulations allow 501(c)(3)s to engage in issue advocacy or lobbying so long as it does not function as political campaign intervention. At times, however, the advocacy/lobbying can cross a line to become an indirect way to support or oppose a candidate for public office. “Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.” Rev. Rul. 2007-41, 2007-25 I.R.B. (June 28, 2007). The IRS will consider all facts and circumstances to determine whether the advocacy is political campaign intervention. Id. Key factors include:

“Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any elections; and
Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.” Id.

All of these factors as a hole are taken into account, and t would be interesting to see how they would be weighed by the courts.