What the election map would have looked like if only white men could vote

Discuss

135 Responses to “What the election map would have looked like if only white men could vote”

  1. Jake0748 says:

    Scary.  Proud to live in WA though.  

  2. Judas Peckerwood says:

    So can we all agree that between this and voting in both marriage equality and legal recreational pot, my home state of Washington instantly became the coolest state in the Union last Tuesday? Yes, I believe we can.

    • niktemadur says:

      the coolest state in the Union last Tuesday

      The coolest white state in the Union.  Or maybe just pale.  What did the Seattle guy say to the Pillsbury Dough Boy?  “Nice tan, dude!”

  3. Ashley Yakeley says:

    I’m feeling all smug about being a white man in Washington State (just to add to the chorus).

  4. Jake0748 says:

     Interesting about Massachusetts there too. 

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      Not too surprising, nor much of a shock that four of the five states have legalized same-sex marriage.

    • Warren_Terra says:

      The voters of Massachusetts knew Romney better than most.

      • Alan says:

        They knew him better than that when he was governor, too.  He didn’t run for a second term because he was way down in the polls, and knew if he lost the race he’d never have a shot at the presidency.  So instead of facing the voters, he quit.  That’s leadership!

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      During the 1972 presidential election, Massachusetts was the only state to give its electoral votes to George McGovern, the Democratic nominee (the District of Columbia also voted for McGovern). Following the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974, two famous bumper stickers were sold in Boston, one saying “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts,” and the other read “Nixon 49, America 1″.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Massachusetts#Federal_elections

      • cellocgw says:

        Yeah, and now we want Nixon back. He’s a heckuva lot more left-wing than Obama. (“we” being a representative crowd of one MA resident here :-) )

        • Heevee Lister says:

          I used to say that too.  Then I realized that what I really want back isn’t that squeaky little crook.  It’s the political climate of 1968, when anything and everything seemed possible, before Hunter S Thompson’s wave “finally broke and rolled back.”

  5. hoffmanbike says:

    Yay, I’m a White Male Masshole who helped keep Massachusetts for the better candidate.

  6. Luke Sheppard says:

    Um, dude, this is kind of insulting to white men. Stereotyping, even for fun, does not do anyone any good. Try something more creative. Anyone can poke fun at a race/gender group. Please try harder.

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      I agree. Unpleasant facts are awful and insulting.

      • Luke Sheppard says:

        There are plenty of other sites on the web that use cold hard facts and verifiable truths, how ever useless, to belittle or degrade selected groups of people. BB doesn’t seem the place for it.

        • Gatto says:

          I think your premises are flawed. Sounds like you’re saying 1) the information is useless; 2) mark was going out of his way to find an obscure way to criticize people of his skin color and presumptive sex. 

          As far as I can tell these are things you’ve brought to the table. How come?

          Statistics and graphics are BB-staples, and interesting ( except for Ann what’s her name ) especially when you consider the history of suffrage in the US ( as the linked post does. )

    • This is not stereotyping. Stereotyping is the inaccurate over-generalization of traits from specific examples to a group. This is simply reporting facts about who voted for whom.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      The cold hard demographic facts hurt

      •  What would the map look like if only black men were

        allowed to vote?

        • Tynam says:

          I suspect “What would the map like if only women were allowed to vote” is a more relevant and interesting question.

          The Republican party has been the party of bigoted fear of non-white people for a while now, but the level of open misogyny has increased a great deal recently.  (Correct me if I’m wrong; it could be a bias introduced by my distance from the US.)

          • Boundegar says:

            Nope, you’re not wrong.

          • giantasterisk says:

            Well, I was feeling pretty darn good about my state of Colorado, until I saw the 1920, post-women’s suffrage map that showed us once again in the Romney camp. I’m a bit shocked. Do conservative women outnumber liberal ones by such a significant margin in Colorado? Do a majority of women in Colorado vote against women’s interests? Geez.

          • Baldhead says:

             I’d say you’re right. The increase began about 4 years ago I’d also say…

        • vintermann says:

          Good question. 

          I think it’s cheap to cast white men as the villains just for marginally, as a group, preferring one political candidate to another. Surely there are better reasons to damn white men if you’re into that! (After all, if women and men / blacks and whites were politically identical, it wouldn’t really matter if we denied one of them the vote).

          The lessons to take away from this map + the numbers is actually:

          * There is some difference in political opinion by gender (quelle surprise!) 

          * The electoral college system + first past the post winner getting all electoral votes per state, means that this modest difference would be translated into a huge difference in the outcome, should one gender suddenly abstain from voting/not be allowed to vote.

          * This difference looks even more impressive when you visualize it with square miles rather than by share of population/electors.

          • Kramski says:

            How is 62% marginally? Below 60, I might give it to you. But nearly 2/3 is not what I call marginally. And I do think this does indicate (and only indicate mind you) a larger problem, when all other races had less than 30% support for the Republican candidate.

          • You make the assumption, full of hubris, that “all other” were somehow right. Statistically, 62% is a lot more near “marginal” than the 98% African-American vote enjoyed by Mr. Obama. 

          • Kramski says:

            Holly… no, I really don’t. I am not even a citizen of your country, so I have no personal stake in the voting turnout. But if there is such a clear, noticeable racial divide between voters, it does imply that a) one party (or both) makes policies that benefit only a certain group and repells the other and/or b) that there is a problem with racism.

            I don’t know why you accuse me of hubris. I am just pointing out that the marginal difference was not so marginal at all.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I’m unclear what part of this you’re unclear on. It’s not stereotyping. It’s reality as best we’re able to observe it.

      • Shinkuhadoken says:

        For the sake of argument, there is some evidence to suggest that breaking down statistics on racial lines itself creates racial stereotyping. For example, the way the United States breaks down crime statistics based on the color of your skin reinforces a prejudice that blacks are more prone to crime and essentially becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just like measuring the voltage in a circuit changes the voltage in the circuit, creating racially significant reports further enhances racial presumptions.

    • blueelm says:

      You don’t think it is useful or interesting to note that while white men disproportionately voted Republican it was not enough to sway the vote? Because that seems interesting to me. But I don’t know, I don’t have my pride tied up in it.

    • Boris Bartlog says:

      It doesn’t seem insulting to me. Suppose I were a Romney supporter. I’d look at this map and say ‘hell yeah, at least some of us got it right!’. Or something. If you made some other map that showed Obama taking the black vote in all 50 states, would that be insulting? I don’t see the problem.

    • dbergen says:

      Uh, dude, look up “stereotyping” in the dictionary, this ain’t that.

    • wysinwyg says:

       Where’s the stereotyping?  What part of this isn’t just a statement of fact?

  7. CJ Casey says:

    Yay! Way to completely reduce a complex election (economy, health care, taxation, foreign affairs in Libya and with the Drone Program) to nothing more than a stupid question on race. Does the author of this graphic honestly believe that 48% of the country is racist? Or is it just frightening for him/ her to think of the reasons that people might have wanted to vote for the other side, so it’s easier to just paint those voters as Other? Come on… I know bOINGbOING is usually slightly to the left on issues that I as a libertarian/ fiscal conservative am usually slightly to the right on, but I expect more intelligent discourse from this site, one I’ve gladly followed in one form or another since first reading The Happy Mutant Handbook in the mid-nineties.

    • Shaun says:

      Interestingly, I think we read this completely differently.  I didn’t see it as a reflection on the candidates, more than “middle-aged white male” is the archetype of the Republican voter.

    • Rindan says:

      This is pure truth here.  It is what it is.  You will notice the article doesn’t bother to leave a conclusion.  Come to your own.  Your conclusion is apparently that white men are bigots, which is why I assume you are so upset.  There are other conclusions you could come to.  Why do you think white men vote so radically different from the rest of the population?  

      Personally, I think the reason is because the Republican party has become a slave to white Christian males and are incapable of empathy for people who are not white Christian males.  

      I am actually a pretty good example.  I could vote Republican.  I want to see the growth of government reigned in.  I’m skeptical of big government programs.  I would have liked to have seen the states hash out the health care thing a little bit longer before deciding that the Massachusetts plan, AKA Romney care, which I current live under and am completely fine with, is really the right course for the entire nation.  I am pretty solidly “moderate” in terms of my economic beliefs, and I am open to being swayed because I realize I don’t actually know the magic sauce to make the economy Work, I just have Beliefs.

      I could easily vote Republican if… if… they were not such a fucking party of bigoted monsters.  I have a LOT of gay friends, some of whom are married (yeah Massachusetts!).  There is no fucking way I could look anyone of them in the eyes after having vote for some shithead who would strip them of the right to marriage.

      If any of my female friends were raped, legitimately or not, I would want them to be able to get an abortion.  Hell, I would want them to be able to get an abortion regardless if they were raped because becoming a mommy or daddy should be a choice, not something shoved on you by the State if your condom fails.  

      We spend more on our military than the next 13 assholes behind us.  We complain about not having enough money while at the same time Romney promises he is going to piss more away on guns?  We might need to reduce the growth of social welfare spending, but we should at least stop buying guns before telling grandma her social security check is going to get smaller.

      We have more prisoners in the US than anyone else in the world, both per capita and in actual number.  I think this is actually a bad thing and want to see it go down.  We could start by getting rid of a large pile of fucked up drug laws.

      Anyone who want to refuse amnesty to children who spent most of their lives in the US and are functionally American, and wants to ship them to what is to them a foreign country, is a fucking monster.

      I could go on, but do you know what all of the above have in common?  It is all shit that a straight white males, for the most part, doesn’t have to personally worry about.  All of those brutal restrictions on freedom and liberty are not restrictions that a straight white male has to deal with, it is the suppression of someone else.  Those people not only recognize their own suffering, but the suffering of others.

      The Republicans could have a party that fights for people who are straight white males and also people who are not straight white males.  I want a party that tries to hold a little fiscal discipline (not that Republicans actually do that, but in theory they could).  I just can’t in good conscience vote for bigoted monsters.  

      The bigoted shit show that was the Republican primary is why they lost and why they are going to keep losing until they get their crap together.  Abandon being assholes who isn’t a straight white Christian male, find your moderate libertarian balls, and tell the religious psychopaths go jump in a lake.  Until then, not straight while males (and those who have not straight white male loved ones) will be voting Democrat.

      • ocker3 says:

         I agree that the size of the US Military (and the amount of the US economy reliant on weapons production, for domestic and international consumption) is perhaps too large for the actual needs of the USA, but my question is, what would you replace it with? Those dollars are creating jobs.

        Options:
        A paid version of the Peace Corps
        More space research, public and private.
        Green Tech research

        • Tynam says:

          The industrial benefit of those dollars is heavily slanted towards prison slave labour, so they’re destroying jobs as well as creating them.  (Not to mention lives.)

          • ocker3 says:

             Good point, which also perhaps answers some of the questions about why so many Americans are in jail.

    • social_maladroit says:

      You seem a bit defensive about not voting for Obama.

    • Nell Anvoid says:

      Whoa! Settle down, there Mr. Libertarian. Extrapolating popular vote  demographics and correlating them to the the electoral college system hardly seems like saying that “48% of the country is racist.”

      If that’s the interpretation you get out of this, then, I guess, the truth really does hurt. I see it rather differently though.

    • In all fairness there weren’t any good reason to vote for ‘the other side’, unless you happened to have a boat load of money and not care about the rest of society.

      I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

    • Origami_Isopod says:

      “Does the author of this graphic honestly believe that 48% of the country is racist?”

      LOL. Racism is totes over because we have a black president, right?

    • cellocgw says:

      I rather suspect a far larger percentage of the US is racist than that.  You don’t think blacks hate Asians, Mexicans hate Haitians, Koreans hate Vietnamese, … ad semi-infinitum?   And BTW, you can be racist but not use that as your reason for voting one way or the other.  I would be interested in seeing the “White male” vote broken out by income level and education level as well, for examples.

  8. Marios P. says:

    I can’t believe that white men could be so deep burried in their asses to give this sort of result. 
    On the other hand I do not live in the US, so what do I know?

  9. Jake0748 says:

    For all you spoilsport, crabby, over-sensitive, liberals, libertarians and whatever stereotypes I can’t think of to make fun of right now… sigh…  Did you even think about looking at the article that  Mark was talking about and linked to in the post?   

    Its a history lesson.  A primer on demographics. 
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with

    Not really even that political.  Quit whining and read an article once in a while. 

  10. niktemadur says:

    Ann Coulter wants women’s voting rights taken away

    Well that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, now is it?  Go ahead and ignore the skinny witch, live in peace and breathe the free air even as she keeps on living up her own toxic ass.

    • ponzicar says:

      I’m certain that she doesn’t believe what she says. She’s just fanning controversy for publicity and book sales.

      • niktemadur says:

        What a horrifying way to bring home the bacon.

      • snagglepuss says:

        Which actually makes her even worse. Particularly as she claims to represent a political party and a culture in which belief and commitment to the cause are held above all other human attributes. 

      • Christopher says:

        Which is part of the problem, isn’t it? She sells a lot of books spouting things that, to be charitable, she doesn’t believe, because controversy sells.

        But even if she doesn’t believe what she’s saying there are a lot of people who do and for whom Coulter’s words are a form of validation. After all she’s a published author who sells a lot of books. Therefore the things she says must be true.

        It’s fine to say that she just says crazy things to sell books, but that doesn’t justify poisoning the well of American politics. And whenever discussions of this sort come up I know there’s always the “well, both sides do it” argument, but I can’t think of any liberal writer who is equally dishonest who gets the same amount of attention and respect that Coulter receives.

      • Monkey_pants says:

        There’s a portion of people who sincerely believe that Coulter is a canny liberal plant whose purpose it to lay bare the rabid bigotry of the Republican right.

  11. Petzl says:

    There’s a whole group of people who want to take away direct election of the Senate (mostly Tea Partiers and severe neo-cons). (The constitution had state legislatures appointing senators until an amendment changed it to its current form in 1913.)  They’ve even infiltrated and corrupted the wiki article on the Seventeenth Amendment making seem like reversion to the “old ways” is the only sensible option.

  12. mike says:

    …but, even so, Romney wouldn’t be able to manage to carry the state where he served as Governor and where people presumably know him best.

    • Christopher says:

      Looking at the electoral map as it is, not as it would be, I’m struck by the fact that not only did Romney lose Massachusetts, but both he and Ryan lost their home states.

      Romney’s loss of Massachusetts isn’t that surprising, and maybe his loss of Michigan isn’t that surprising either, but Ryan’s loss of Wisconsin is probably something he should be thinking hard about when he goes back to Congress.

  13. John Eikenberry says:

    > What The 2012 Election Would Have Looked Like Without Universal Suffrage 

    Bullshit. Universal suffrage isn’t the only way to get more diversity in voting. If you like to stick with traditional rules you could always just stick with the landowner bit and you’d get plenty of women and minorities voting.

    Anyways, the scary bit here is that they’d still vote for one of the 2 losers running.

    • Warren_Terra says:

      Are you obtuse, a parody, or do you just delight in being wrong?

      It might shock you to learn that very few people age 18-24 own property. It really ought not to surprise you to learn that before the subprime collapse Black Americans owned their own homes at about 2/3 the rate of White Americans – and Black Americans were hit disproportionate to their share of the population in the resulting wave of foreclosures. And don’t even get me started about the logical consequences on Women’s Suffrage when you consider the single vote you’d accord to married couples owning property  …

      And since when did property ownership become an uncontested good? If you work in a big city, you can easily be a productive member of society, and make good money (and the two are not the same), and yet never hope to own your own home. And if you retire to an assisted-living or other planned community, you may well not own your own home.

      Why you’d think imposing a property requirement would do anything other than arbitrarily and unequally disenfranchise huge swaths of the voting public is quite beyond me.

      • Boundegar says:

        I could be wrong, but I think he was just giving an example, not advocating it.

        • Warren_Terra says:

          I don’t know how else to interpret this:

          you could always just stick with the landowner bit and you’d get plenty of women and minorities voting.

          It certainly appears to me to assert that a property requirement would not unduly reduce minority representation at the ballot box. This assertion is just transparently wrong; also, it ignores effects that would discriminate by age, by income, by rural/urban lifestyle (which is surely linked to ethnicity, sexuality, faith, etcetera), and doubtless by still other criteria.

      • wysinwyg says:

        Interesting…”2/3rds” is quite close to “3/5ths”.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Bullshit. Universal suffrage isn’t the only way to get more diversity in voting. If you like to stick with traditional rules you could always just stick with the landowner bit and you’d get plenty of women and minorities voting.

      Because there’s no chance that the dominant landowning group would restrict landowning to their own demographic. It’s not like that’s ever happened.

    • chgoliz says:

      You’re assuming that the “reasons” used to deny women and minorities suffrage would somehow not be put into play in denying them real estate ownership.  And yet, they were, for many generations in many countries.

  14. Warren_Terra says:

    The related statistic I find fascinating is that 88% of Romney’s voters were White, compared to just 54% of Obama’s. 

    You could see this looking at the audiences for their election-night speeches. Both were in convention centers, with invited, accredited guests; you weren’t going to get the mix you saw in 2008 in Grant Park. Romney’s crowd was seemingly all older White folks (disproportionately men) wearing business attire; Obama’s crowd showed much greater diversity by all of those criteria.

  15. FoolishOwl says:

    It’s quite telling how commenters are rushing to deny boingboing’s accusation that many white men are racist, despite the fact that the accusation wasn’t actually made. The title simply describes what the map illustrates; Mark Frauenfelder’s only comment is to suggest that this is why Ann Coulter said she’s willing to see women lose the vote.

    I’m tired of the denial. Many white people in the US, especially white men, are racist. This is a problem. We need to confront it.

  16. amarx says:

    It’s not just Ann Coulter — it’s also people like Fox News’ Dick Morris, who is back with another crazy prediction: http://hollywoodandswine.com/following-prediction-of-romney-landslide-fox-news-dick-morris-predicts-oscar-sweep-for-thats-my-boy/

  17. Uh, I’m a white, middle aged male and I not only voted for Obama, I was a volunteer when he first ran in 2008. Oh yeah, by being a white male I guess that automatically makes me evil and racist. Because y’know, ALL white males vote the same in this country. /sarcasm. EDIT: Why was I banned from making comments all across boing boing after leaving this comment? Did I offend somebody with my sarcasm? Did I violate some rule that I wasn’t aware of? Did I wear white clothes after labor day? What the hell? If I did something wrong, at least tell me what it was I did!

    • TheMudshark says:

      All those things apply to Mark as well who posted the article, except probably for the volunteering. Don´t be so touchy dude, not everything is directed personally at you.

    • Kramski says:

      Uh, that’s also not what this implies at all. Just because the majority of white men voted for Romney, doesn’t mean that ALL white men voted for Romney. 62% of white men voted for Romney and 35% for Obama. All that that means is that you are one of the 35% voting for Obama. Still, if only white male votes had been counted, the election map would look as above.
      Nobody ever said all white men are racist or all white men voted for Romney. I honestly don’t get where you got that from?

    • ocker3 says:

       It’s a graph showing White Males overall, not you or me in particular.

    • blueelm says:

      oh for God’s sakes I live in a red state. it was always going to be a red state. I didn’t vote Republican, but I’m not going to go cry about it if some one says I live in a red state. You weren’t in the majority of your demographic. No one called you evil. But most white men in this country vote Republican. Instead of lashing out to tell the rest of us how good you are, try just being happy the rest of us have enough numbers and presence to sway the vote with you!

      Geeez!

    • Christopher says:

      As a fellow white male, I’d like to ask you to please relax. This was not, in my reading, an attempt to claim that “ALL white males vote the same in this country”.

      If there was a point being made it’s that the majority of white males in this country are, in fact, now a minority.

      Looking at the graphic above I now understand what Bill O’Reilly meant when he said, “It’s not a traditional America anymore.” When I first heard that remark I didn’t understand what exactly it meant or why it was a complaint, but now I do. He meant, “People who look and think like me are having a harder and harder time getting elected.”

      Personally I don’t see that as a bad thing.

    • MrJM says:

      Oh yeah, by being a white male I guess that automatically makes me evil and racist.

      I’m a white, middle-aged male and I not only voted for Obama, I was a volunteer for his Senate race and an Obama staffer in 2008, so I gotta ask you, “Who the hell said that?” 

      (hint: nobody)

    • Origami_Isopod says:

      TEH POOR WHITE MENZ, THEY’RE SO OPPRESSED AND DEMONIZED!!!

  18. Teri Szucs says:

    No wonder I’m still single trying to find a liberal guy in CA

  19. crayons says:

    What’s really perplexing here is the rush of white male commenters defending themselves. If you’re a white dude who voted blue, then congrats! You’re probably great!

    This post isn’t an insult or an attack, it’s just a graph of what a certain portion of the population *tends* to do. It also shows that some members of that group act differently. Instead of being offended that someone would dare to point out a trend in behavior in your demographic, can’t you feel proud of your own actions and express hope that others in the group will come around to your viewpoint?

    Perhaps you could see yourself as one of the disobedient subjects in the Milgram experiment. The majority of your peers behaved more cruelly than you; take pride in your ability to make different choices.

  20. Keith Tyler says:

    I am both in, and from, two of the good states, separated by 3,000 miles. I am happy with this.

    It is worth a note, IMO, that the blueness of Washington on this map is largely due to a single very-populous Puget Sound county.

  21. Marc Mielke says:

    I find the 1970 map interesting in that it defies all the current conventional wisdom: Obama loses both Florida and Ohio, but still wins by a hair. 

  22. peregrinus says:

    Fascinating.  No-where in the charts can I gain traction on the inference that all the white men are racist.  I believe that a statistically significant number are (what %?  I don’t know).  But just to challenge your thinking, what would the map show if filtered on non-whites, and then into major non-white ethnic categories?

    I’m feeling an Obama sweep; but the point is, that wouldn’t indicate all non-whites included in the data were anti-white.

    Few voters actually go through a process of analysis, weighing each candidate vs the other (shame there are only two), few challenge their own assumptions and sit in the other seat for a while.  If white males have sociologically inherited positions that emphasise GOP traits like conservatism vs change, then you can work on that.

    Ingrained and purposeful racism shouldn’t be confused with inherited bigotry, infused via conditioning.  Not that the latter couldn’t drive an individual to commit disgusting acts, but it is that the latter can be swayed at the very least from passing on their legacy to credulous and unquestioning followers, be they children or adults.
    I read into all of this the utter importance of all-inclusive voting rights and the high value of a free society.

    For all the hair-pulling, screaming, shocking aspects of the US presidential contest, you guys are blessed with a society so far advanced over many, many nations – so blessed that you should be kissing the ground you stand on and weeping.

    You’ve got a ways to go, sure.

    But line yourselves up against say Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Greece (home of democracy!!), Austria, Nigeria … etc.

    You all have the freedom to identify these patterns, and engage in active strategies to change opinions and preferences.  The fact that the information is even available is amazing.

    After all, imagine this map printed in Russia.  Pretty soon there’d be bodies.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Strictly speaking, if only white men could vote, Obama wouldn’t have been running. And Romney still would have lost because the other candidate would almost certainly have been less of a prat.

      • peregrinus says:

        Agreed – the parallel universes imaginable had no change in voting rights been made since … er … time began … are many.

        Maybe an MLK -ish figure would’ve run on an independent ticket.  With a copy of “The Fire Next Time” under his / her arm.

    • CH says:

      “No-where in the charts can I gain traction on the inference that all the white men are racist.”
      What “all white men” are you talking about? The only ones mentioning it seems to be the poor white male hand wringers responding to this thread.

      “you guys are blessed with a society so far advanced over many, many nations – so blessed that you should be kissing the ground you stand on and weeping.”
      Since when has “other countries has it worse” been a defense for not looking at your own faults? And there are many, many nations where there is a much broader spectrum of who has been presidents or would have any chance of winning than in the US. For instance in my country we had a woman as a president for two terms (who had served back in the days as a chairman for our country’s main LBGT rights organisation), and although we now have a “white middle age man” as a president, the “white middle age man” who finished second is openly gay. We do have some way to go, though, before a non-white would have much of a change winning.

    • Origami_Isopod says:

      “….you guys are blessed with a society so far advanced over many, many nations – so blessed that you should be kissing the ground you stand on and weeping.”

      Dear Muslimah…

  23. Boundegar says:

    Am I the only one who looked at this and realized I need to thank some black people?

  24. Jaldhar says:

     Even if you allow that this series of graphs were not making some insinuation about racism or anything like that but purely a statement on demographics they are still pretty useless.

    There would be a lot more blue because 18th century Obama would not be running  on the liberal assumptions of 2012 but on of those times.  He would be out there pumping “Family Values” just like everyone else.  He is after all religious, long-time married and monogamous. He wouldn’t have felt the need to “evolve” on Gay marriage because the whole concept would have been science-fiction (as would be evolution :-)

    In 1920, Mormons and Catholics like Paul Ryan would also have been “minorities” and not even considered white by much of the population.  (the Klan particularly in the North was as likely to be anti-Catholic as anti-black.)

    I could go on but the point is you some commentators are attempting to draw  conclusions about the future from what doesn’t even rise to the level of junk science.

    Who is to say the definitions of White and Minority won’t change again? The Hispanic immigrants in their homelands have historical racial stratification as entrenched as anything over here.  Or that African-American birthrates go into an even steeper decline then they already have?   Is it hard to imagine a future married Gay politician criticising the immorality of singles Gay or Straight?

    I don’t know and neither do you.

    • peregrinus says:

      Your birthrate comment was interesting.

      In Malaysia, since 1961 the Chinese population have been pushed into minority via a drive in the Malay population to increase births.  It’s been massively effective for the Malays.

      Does the GOP anti-abortion view get driven as hard in majority black areas as majority white?

      I ask because of this little number:  “The continuation of a high abortion rate along with a significant reduction in the overall pregnancy rate among black women has brought about an unprecedented situation in which the level of black fertility is even lower than that of whites”
      http://www.learninc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=26

      Just askin’

      • Jaldhar says:

        Anti-abortion isn’t a GOP view, it is a religious, particularly Christian view.  It just so happens the GOP is more hospitable to Christians right now.  It is not that Democrats hate them but being a believer especially a pro-life one is not the path to advancement in party ranks.

        I live in NJ in a very blue part of a reliably blue state.  There effectively is no Republican organization here at the local level.  It is majority Hispanic, Blacks and Whites are tied for second place, and it has some of Americas largest Hindu and Muslim populations.  The Catholic church is the biggest denomination and most influential though somewhat on the decline it seems.  It pushes the pro-life message.  But its audience is mainly White and Hispanic.  Hispanic evangelical churches also are pro-life but more interested in economic issues as their base are mostly immigrants.  Hindus like me don’t go for abortion very much but neither are we particularly out to stop it.  I assume Muslims think similarly.

        Black churchgoers from what I’ve seen are also mainly fundamentalist if you ask them but their faith is less doctrinal and more emotional.  Plus they also have the economic issues Hispanics do.  Also Blacks are more likely to come from single-mother families not well integrated into social networks.  I think that probably explains their higher abortion rates more than any other factor.

        • Boundegar says:

          I disagree.  There is nothing at all in Christian scriptures about abortion.  Further, most mainline denominations leave the question to individual conscience, and poll strongly pro-choice.

          But for reactionary folks who feel that all modernism is a road to hell, and things began to disintegrate in the 1960′s, opposition to abortion is as natural as opposition to contraception, or the Civil Rights Act, or rock’n’roll.  The GOP has chosen to go all-in on that demographic, giving them everything they want and reinforcing their feelings of fear and alienation.  It began with the Southern Strategy, and seems to be ending with the Tea Party.

          Putting all that fear and hate in the mouth of Jesus doesn’t change the nature of the faith. And it just might make him angry.

          • Jaldhar says:

            I’ll take your word for it.  I’m just reporting what the churches and Christians here say they believe.  And remember I said I was talking about urban New Jersey not the South. 

            By mainline I assume you mean Episcopal, Methodist etc. right?  I’m sure there are some here but they’re keeping a low profile.  Probably because they are old, white, and empty.  Nationally you may be right.

            Also isn’t “There isn’t anything in the Christian scriptures” a particularly Protestant  argument?  Catholics have additional sources of authority.

          • Robert Drop says:

            See the recent BB article on how recent the Evangelical position on abortion really is (and it’s the evangelicals who are making abortion a political issue, far more than the Catholics who vote for Democrats with some consistency).  So yeah, it’s a GOP issue first and foremost, not a religious one.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Anti-abortion isn’t a GOP view

          Since it’s in their platform, your entire premise is unsupported.

  25. John Tuffen says:

    Um… here in the UK voting is anonymised – obviously not the same in the US; or am I missing something?

    Otherwise how is the mapping from “voter -> ethnicity/gender -> vote” made?

    (that seems to me to be the most worrying aspect here – erosion of privacy)

    • It’s data from private polling.  In the past, usually exit poll data.  This year, the media commissioned exit polls for fewer than all states (30 I think), so some other sort of private poll data must have been used for those states.  As such polls are samplings and require the pollee to cooperate, the results aren’t necessarily perfect reflections of the way people voted.  No privacy violations though.

      • Rick Westerman says:

        According to the article they extrapolated the missing exit poll data from other demographic data. Now it is possible for exit polls to be close to the truth and it is possible for extrapolation to also be close to the truth however it is also possible for both to be mistaken. Especially when layered upon the binary all-red/all-blue coloring of states that the electoral college brings out. As you said, the results are not perfect reflections of the way people voted.

        There is no doubt that white males voted predominately for Romney. The CNN exit polls show a 35%/62% split and while they may be wrong they won’t too wrong. Perhaps plus or minus 5%? I couldn’t find their margin of error. It would have been nice to see the map colored “red”, “blue” and “shaded” with the latter indicating the given state was too close to call due to the margin of error.

      • sarahnocal says:

         The individual county demographics could have been used.

  26. jackrabbitslim says:

    As a white guy in a red state who voted blue I’d like to chime in and say, SO. MUCH. BUTTHURT. You other guys need to simmer down. Since the election I just walk around, looking at people I work with and quietly revel in my satisfaction that their (very largely racially and sexually driven) votes DID NOT WIN. Even if my own didn’t really count because I live in (What’s the Matter with) Kansas. 

    • Christopher says:

      While I’m fully aware of What’s The Matter With Kansas I feel compelled to say that I love, love, love Lawrence, and visiting there was a valuable reminder to not judge people based solely on the voting trends of their state.

  27. vintermann says:

    Says more about first past the post voting than it does about white American men.

  28. traalfaz says:

    I’m a white male, and this just makes me sad that my peer group is this horrible.

  29. ScytheNoire says:

    Only in America. It’s not like this in many other countries, at least not with the sub-40 population. Plus America is a far more racist country than most others.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      If you think that the US is more racist, you must not read the international news. Some of the crap that comes out of the mouths of European politicians is shocking.

  30. Alan says:

    I’ve a feeling that if the only people who could originally vote according to the US Constitution (almost entirely wealthy or land-owning white males) had been allowed to vote today, all 50 states would be red.

  31. Rick Westerman says:

    Too bad they didn’t do a similar graphic only presenting the White Protestant vote.   That map should be similarly colored.   I wonder what types of comments would be expressed if we were talking about the religious divide?

    The CNN data shows White Protestant vote going 30% Obama, 69% Romney while the White Male vote is 35%/62%.  As a white male non-protestant I am glad to know that there is a group even more biased than mine.  :-)

    • Henry Pootel says:

      Prius versus Pickup vote breakdown would be interesting, since you can tell a lot about a person by what car they drive – just like you can by their race.

  32. Lauren says:

    As a woman from Maine, I gotta say I love my Maine men!

  33. urpBurp says:

    Wow… great to see how our race relations in America have progressed so far. Reading these comments have filled me with such hope for the future…

    I once heard a great man say,

    “…I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character

    I have a dream today!…”

    But still people will read this and come away convinced that it supports their own personal racist viewpoints…

    Why won’t we ever listen?

  34. Richard Wolff says:

    As a white male i must ask how much people actual care that “insert here” with internet is a white male?

  35. mikey666 says:

    So lets chart black females, puerto ricans, or marxist lesbians.

  36. I saw this more as a history lesson— of how important it was to our democracy to give women and minorities the right to vote. Such a huge portion of the population now have a voice…

  37. Ladyfingers says:

    This map doesn’t surprise me, what surprises me is that a whole 1 in 8 of Romney’s voters wasn’t white. 

  38. benher says:

    Hurts to look at the ol’ data. Ow. 
    But once again, this whitish guy did his part and stayed at home eating Doritos.

  39. FoolishOwl says:

    Among many other examples, a much higher percentage of black people voted for Bill Clinton than for Bob Dole. It’s pretty obvious that black people don’t have a problem with voting for white people, historically.

  40. Jake0748 says:

     Why don’t YOU do those pie charts?  You got google just like the rest of us.  And, can you explain how YOU are not being racist here?

  41. L_Mariachi says:

    Other commenters: PLEASE DO NOT FEED

  42. James says:

    “white people are simply the least racist race on the planet”

    Cite your sources, if you please. Conjecture does not a compelling argument make.

Leave a Reply