Thanks to "new" voters, Obama turned Florida blue.
McCain received only 48.4% in Florida, or 3,938,166 votes.
Obama won 50.9%, or 4,142,174 votes, and took this swingiest of swing states.
However, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment did better than either.
In a state which requires constitutional amendments to obtain 60% to pass, "Yes" for "marriage protection" received 62.1%, or 4,758,737 votes. "No" received only 37.9%, or 2,909,086 votes (including me and my kids).
Give the "progressive" Democratic voters the benefit of the doubt, and assume every single McCain voter was a "Yes" for "marriage protection".
And, give the Democratic voters the further benefit of the doubt, and assume every single minor party vote was also a "Yes" for "marriage protection". (There were 14 presidential tickets on the Florida ballot, gathering approximately 61,000 votes in toto.)
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/
My rusty math skills indicate that still leaves over approximately 759,571 "Yes" votes.
In fact, under the above overly generous assumptions, it means at least 18.3% of Obama voters in Florida voted "Yes" to "protect" marriage.
A simple question - - if these new socially conservative voters have permanently joined the Democratic coalition, and weren't at the polls solely for the person of Barack Obama, how will this impact future Florida Democratic primaries?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
At least 18%, but this isn't exactly a party-line issue, since there are plenty of Republicans who favor it, and many Dems who don't, so I'm sure the true percentage is much higher.
Barry, are you assuming that someone who is opposed to legalizing gay marriage is a really "social conservative" across the board? Or for that matter even a social conservative on very many other issues? Or could it be that there are lots of voters who are "uncomfortable" for whatever reason, with gay marriage, but who are still:
Pro-choice;
Pro-gun control;
Anti-Death penalty;
Pro-allowing felons to have back the vote;
Pro-increased welfare;
Pro-spending more tax money on the NEA;
Anti school vouchers;
Anti-US military involvement in the Middle East;
Suspicious of US support for Israel, and willing to believe our support for Israel is largely the root cause of the Muslim world's hatred of the US;
In favor of higher taxes on the "rich";
In favor of more government regulation over industries such as the auto industry (FORCE them to make hybrids);
Views the oil producing companies as "greedy" to the point of being possibly even "evil";
Not really sure what Marxism even means, but it "feels" sort of like capitalism is not so good and just "feels" sort of unfair, somehow;
Very uncomfortable with flag-waving and nationalistic pride which feels "jingoistic"....that is, until this November 4, 2008, when all of a sudden it felt good to be an American again for the first time since Bobby Kennedy was giving speeches;
Perfectly fine with filling up your car with gas which came from oil rigs off the shore of some African country or from from wells in Siberia - but very opposed to having the same sort of rigs off OUR precious coast or wells in OUR precious frozen tundra;
Windmills! Yeah, that's the ticket;
Believes all the "man made global warming catastrophe" hoopla;
Fears evangelical christians, or those who dare to wear their christianity on their sleeve (e.g.,Palin, W) MORE than Islamic terrorism;
Are convinced that Bush took away a bunch of their constitutional rights;
What other aspects of modern, Obama voting, liberalism am I missing?
Point being, I read yesterday that Obama got something like 62%of the Catholic vote, nationally. And other than the "socially conservative" positions on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, a majority of Catholics are obviously more in the liberal camp.
Ergo, you get voters like many Catholics, voting against gay marriage, because it is right there as a ballot choice for them - while at the same time having the opportunity to vote for their candidate for president who shares their liberal views on almost every other issue.
As opposed to a"sea change" towards across the board "social conservatism" which an across the board "social conservative" candidate could exploit.
But I do think this influx of minority churchgoers into the Democratic party could change the mix in the next primary . . .
IF they come out to vote again.
I would just like to add that a certain percentage of people may have fallen into the camp of "I don't agree with Obama on socially progressive issues, but I am going to take a stand on the economy and I'm not about to re-elect the crew who let it go to hell in a hand basket on their watch" I think the economy played a very big factor in this election. You can't go around telling everyone vote for me 'cause I'm all about smaller government while you and your party vote for the federal government to spend billions of dollars to prop up failing companies. Whether it needed to be done or not, that argument just doesn't carry any water. Admittedly, I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he voted for the bailout. If only because allowing this bailout has set off a chain of potential/inevitable bailouts; the car companies, California and anyone else who can make the case that they are too important to the economy as a whole to go under.
Attempting...
I agree with you 100%. I have long felt that the the GOP image or "brand" if you will, was perhaps hurt or dinged up a little bit by things like the corruption, the bathroom stall or other sexual antics; and by the Iraq War....but what DESTROYED the "brand" instead of just wounding it, was the drunken, headlong rush into becoming BIG SPENDERs and the total and complete abandonment of holding on to ANY sort of "small government" principles.
By the Repubs in the Senate. And by Bush. Where the hell was his veto pen the past four years?
Not my quote, but as I have read so often: If the choice is between a Democrat and a democrat, people are just going to go ahead and vote for the Democrat.
Bush has always been a big spending, big government fake Republican, starting from his first four years. And not only did you vote for him, you voted for him ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
It's not the he violated your principles, it's that he prevented you from winning. If it was about principles, you wouldn't have voted for Bush in the first place - maybe in 2000, but never in 2004. Winning is what matters here, not "core Republican principles" (whatever that means; let's hope that conference they're holding today is productive so that they can tell you what you're supposed to believe).
If a party has to hold a conference to figure out what they even stand for, then they're really just a name in search of a marketing strategy. Maybe some day you'll find one.
youtwistishout:
I would just like to go on the record to say that you're painting with a very broad brush. I voted for Bush in 2000 mainly becuase I was done with the Clintons and anyone having anything to due with their administration. I am completely guilty of not voting in the 2004 election becuase I wasn't terribly inspired either way.
Yes, the Republican party does need to repackage themselves. They need to be more inclusive and stop this nonsense of if you don't agree with us 100% you are not really one of us. Many people in this country want the government to back out of their lives and be smaller but somehow manage to support pro-choice and gay marriage, just to name a few. Also this is not a new thing. there have been plenty of times on either side of the isle where one party got spanked, regrouped and came back.
Why do people, and this transcends party lines, feel the need inject morally superiority into political discussion?
"If a party has to hold a conference to figure out what they even stand for, then they're really just a name in search of a marketing strategy."
That's not the purpose of the conference, but nice try.
And if they are really just a "name in search of a marketing strategy," well you contradicted yourself when you said Bush was a "Fake" Republican. Therefore, according to you, there must be something which can be considered a "Real" Republican, if Bush is a "fake" one. Good job.
And who are you stating voting for Bush "enthusiastically?" At least as far as 2004 was concerned.
Myself and every Bush voter I know, voted for him in 2000 because he talked a good conservative game at that time, appeared to have been a competant and common sense governor of Texas, and represented a change from the Clinton administration. He did not transform himself into a big government, big spender until after he got elected.
By 2004, the bloom was off the rose and most Bush voters were voting for the "least worse" choice. And Kerry was and still is, a complete asshole. And would have made a crappy president.
So what's this horseshit about if we had principles we would not have voted for him in 04? Who the fuck were we SUPPOSED to vote for?
The common sense, fiscal conservatives already shot themselves in the foot by voting against Big Government Bush I, by voting for Perot. Which placed Clinton into the White House.
I suppose in hindsight, John Francois Kerry is a downright small government libertarian compared to your New Messiah. It's all relative, isn't it.
The voters rejected trickle down economics and embraced traditional values. A lot of us were pro-marriage and pro-Obama voters and we're not going away.
Post a Comment