A fascinating, albeit slightly mathematical, analysis of the American vote by Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics is well worth reading. He tells us that there was indeed an increase in the Latino vote, some 1.7 million, very roughly 15% up on 2008. There was also a very slight increase in the black vote which well and truly scotches my inexpert opinion that Obama would have difficulty pulling out the black vote this time around given the unemployment amongst black voters. However, neither of these increases reached what might have been expected given the general increase in the voting population over the past four years.
According to Mr. Trende, the most important factor in the election result was not the positive increase in Latino and black voters but the negative non-votes of stay-at-home whites. He sums it up, thus:
If we build in an estimate for the growth of the various voting-age populations over the past four years and assume 55 percent voter turnout, we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth.
Had the same number of white voters cast ballots in 2012 as did in 2008, the 2012 electorate would have been about 74 percent white, 12 percent black, and 9 percent Latino (the same result occurs if you build in expectations for population growth among all these groups). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home. The other groups increased their vote, but by less than we would have expected simply from population growth.
Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.
It would seem to me, and you all know how expert I am in these matters, that Romney lost the election either because Democrat attack ads worked better than Republican ones, or, he simply lacked the charisma (for lack of a better word) of his opponent. This brings me back to my old complaint concerning lack of authenticity. As a politician your ideas may be judged right or wrong by your electorate but to ensure that everyone on your side actually gets of their lardy arses and votes you absolutely must demonstrate real conviction based on a well-thought-out ideology. In other words, you must have a set of principles.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I, another ‘whitey’, will not bother voting for ‘Dave’ at the next election.
