My biggest question is: Why did I think it was going to be so close?
If you had asked me a month or two before the election, I would have told you that Obama was going to win. He had numerous events to point to as proof of his presidential leadership. These things included the auto industry bailout, health care reform, and the death of Osama Bin Laden. Plus he had the invaluable advantage of being the incumbent. Once ObamaCare was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court, I was convinced that Obama would win a second term.
But then why was I so surprised on election day?
I always knew that Romney had a shot at the oval office, no doubt about it. If young people and minorities could somehow get excited about him, Romney would win. This being my first closely-watched election, I thought it was completely possible. But he didn't get enough of the minority or youth votes.
According to a Washington Post exit poll (which admits a margin of error of ~4%), Obama bested Romney nationally among 18-29 year olds 60% to 37% (here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/table.html). In the swing states, Obama consistently captured ~60% of the 18-29 year old demographic while Romney could only syphon off percentages in the 30's. Why did young people vote so overwhelmingly for the President? I have a few ideas, but I'll leave them for later.
Now let's look at how certain races affected the outcome of the election. According to the same source, white people, who made up 72% of the people that voted nationally, voted more for Romney (59%) than they did for Obama (39%). That is a difference of 20%. Keep this number in the back of your head. Black people made up 13% of the people that voted, but 93% of them voted for Obama while only 6% backed Romney. Did you get that? 93% of the black population that voted in the 2012 election voted for Obama. The disparity between the candidates among black voters was 87%! How did Obama do so well among black voters?
The hispanic and asian votes were 71% and 73% for Obama, 27% and 26% for Romney. We don't witness quite the disparity as we did with black voters, but we still notice a difference in the 40%'s. It is obvious that minorities voted overwhelmingly for the President. Why is that so?
Now for some conjecture.
I asked myself why young people voted for Obama instead of Romney. It is because young people are more familiar with and likely to adopt liberal social views. We are the ones with gay friends. We are the ones that want abortions. We are the ones that buck the traditional trends of our parents. America is becoming more socially liberal every day and this is why Obama won the youth vote.
Also, young people either don't have the time or the desire to analyze the more complex economic issues. Social issues are easier to understand, easier to have an opinion on, and easier to draw an opnion about a President on. Obama's promotion of liberal social policies and the fact that young people only attempt to understand the easiest policy decisions gave him a huge advantage. Romney's social views, while thriving among certain religious groups, are slowly diverging from the average American's.
Ok, but why do minorities vote for Obama? Well, I think some black people vote for Obama because he's black. There, I said it. I'm sure there are plenty of black people who are aware of the issues, aware of Obama's position on them, and vote for him because they share the same view. But I also think there are black people out there who see a black man and a white man running for the Presidency and they choose to vote for the black man simply because he is black. This would help explain the huge disparity in black voters (remember the 87%?).
Also, minorities might support policies that benefit them even if they infringe upon the freedoms of other Americans. Indeed, it would be tempting to do so myself, but I like to think that I value freedom over any policy that would directly benefit me. Obama proposes more programs that benefit minorities and these generally come at some cost to the rest of the country. This could also explain why minorities vote more for Obama.
In conclusion, Romney lost largely due to the fact that America as a whole is becoming more socially liberal. Also, Obama supports more policies that directly benefit minorities while Romney concentrates on things like jobs and the economy, which are more difficult to understand.
Some of these ideas might need fleshing out and if you have questions or comments, please post them to this page and I'll try to address them. Expect more posts about taxes, the future of the GOP, and gun control. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A in Boston
So the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, wants to ban Chick-Fil-A from opening stores in the city because Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, has made some remarks that have been construed as anti-gay. Cathy said "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Does the mayor have the right to ban this company from operating in his city? Absolutely not. It is not the government's place to refuse this company the right to purchase property and operate a business simply because the government (and specifically one person in this government) doesn't agree with what the owners have said.
Don't we have a right to free speech? All that Dan Cathy did was exercise this right. He believes same-sex marriage to be wrong and he voiced that opinion. If you agree with him, great! If you don't, you can go try to convince him that he's wrong. If his comments immensely offend you, don't eat at his restaurant! But certainly it is not the place of the mayor to ban this business that has committed no crime, no wrongdoing other than voicing a controversial opinion.
Let the company be free to do what it wants. Let it say what it wants. Let it operate stores where it wants. If Bostonians are such proponents of gay rights, then no-one will eat at their store and they will be forced to relocate. But we should never allow government to refuse a company its basic rights because it supports a position contradictory to that of the government.
For the record, Chick-Fil-A is an equal opportunity employer. The culture of Chick-Fil-A, in Cathy's words, is to "treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect - regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."
I understand if you are a proponent of gay rights and you wish that an anti-gay company would not establish itself in your city. But you must recognize that it is not the government's place to ban it from doing so. You must realize that the company has the same rights as any other company to operate in your area. If you don't realize these things, you are encouraging our government to discriminate. You are endorsing a non-existent right of government to discriminate against businesses for what they believe.
I am amazed at how many passionate, young people do not realize government's role in the scope of things. It's frightening. If our nation's youth cannot recognize a government's overreach of power, we will guarantee our children a very restrictive and oppressive one. I will be overcome with despair the day that I resign my political voice to opposing big government instead of proposing and supporting helpful public policy. I can only hope that day has not already come.
Does the mayor have the right to ban this company from operating in his city? Absolutely not. It is not the government's place to refuse this company the right to purchase property and operate a business simply because the government (and specifically one person in this government) doesn't agree with what the owners have said.
Don't we have a right to free speech? All that Dan Cathy did was exercise this right. He believes same-sex marriage to be wrong and he voiced that opinion. If you agree with him, great! If you don't, you can go try to convince him that he's wrong. If his comments immensely offend you, don't eat at his restaurant! But certainly it is not the place of the mayor to ban this business that has committed no crime, no wrongdoing other than voicing a controversial opinion.
Let the company be free to do what it wants. Let it say what it wants. Let it operate stores where it wants. If Bostonians are such proponents of gay rights, then no-one will eat at their store and they will be forced to relocate. But we should never allow government to refuse a company its basic rights because it supports a position contradictory to that of the government.
For the record, Chick-Fil-A is an equal opportunity employer. The culture of Chick-Fil-A, in Cathy's words, is to "treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect - regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."
I understand if you are a proponent of gay rights and you wish that an anti-gay company would not establish itself in your city. But you must recognize that it is not the government's place to ban it from doing so. You must realize that the company has the same rights as any other company to operate in your area. If you don't realize these things, you are encouraging our government to discriminate. You are endorsing a non-existent right of government to discriminate against businesses for what they believe.
I am amazed at how many passionate, young people do not realize government's role in the scope of things. It's frightening. If our nation's youth cannot recognize a government's overreach of power, we will guarantee our children a very restrictive and oppressive one. I will be overcome with despair the day that I resign my political voice to opposing big government instead of proposing and supporting helpful public policy. I can only hope that day has not already come.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Thoughts on Voting Laws
As I must admit in all my posts, I should do more research on this topic before I publish my opinions on it. That being said, I would like to write out my initial feelings about this subject.
In the news recently there have been several stories about controversial voting laws. As far as I know, these laws would require some sort of identification, like a driver’s license or passport, to be presented by the citizen in order to cast a vote. I see no problem with this. It should be no problem for all legal citizens of the US. I carry my driver’s license everywhere. Doesn’t everyone? Maybe I come from an exclusive area of the US where everyone happens to have and carry their driver’s licenses, but nonetheless this is the way I believe the majority of the population functions.
Now if the whole of the US had and carried ID’s, there would be no controversy. But obviously, not everyone has government issued identification. This percentage of the population has to be small. I think I know one person who doesn’t have a driver’s license; and she probably has a SS card or passport or some other kind of ID that would validate her vote. Then again I’m not living in the NYC projects where I imagine a higher percentage of the population doesn’t have proper identification.
So this is where the democrats start whining. Young people and minorities are more likely to vote democrat (just my thinking, but I’m sure there are some studies that show this is the general trend). Also, young people and minorities are less likely to have proper identification. So the democrats, in trying to save some of their key demographics, are raising a big fuss over these voter ID laws. But they are not doing so because of some objection to the substance, validity, or benefit of the law, but because the law will potentially diminish the amount of people that vote democrat.
So why do we want this law in the first place? There must have been some event that spurred its creation. I imagine it was a bunch of non-citizens (is that a word?) that managed to cast votes. Indeed, that would motivate me to write and pass such a law as the one we’ve been discussing. But then what would I say to the democrats? What would I say to the citizens in the US that can’t vote because they don’t have proper identification? I would say “Get some proper identification and then you can vote!” It’s as simple as that! How much does a driver’s license cost? $15? I know, I too find it outrageous for a small piece of rectangular plastic, but it’s manageable. I’m not sure how one goes about getting a SS card or a birth certificate, but aren’t those similar processes? Does anyone know the easiest way to obtain proper identification from the government? For me and I imagine the vast majority of the voting population, it has always been extremely easy, even if mundane, to get government issued ID’s.
Here’s another point that might come off as a little brash. If a certain citizen does not have enough money to get a proper ID, they probably don’t have enough money to stay politically informed. If they’re not politically informed, would they be voting? I don’t think so. In my experience, not even all those who are aware of the current political scene end up voting. So I imagine that those who are not politically informed vote even less often. This argument just serves to say that those who don’t have ID’s are less likely to be politically informed and less likely to cast a sincere and seriously considered vote. Don’t get me wrong, they still have the right to vote, it’s just that they are less likely to do so.
So that’s my spiel. I’ll try to do some research and find some hard numbers. As of right now, it seems to me that democrats are just complaining about a good law because it weakens them in the fall election.
Now if the whole of the US had and carried ID’s, there would be no controversy. But obviously, not everyone has government issued identification. This percentage of the population has to be small. I think I know one person who doesn’t have a driver’s license; and she probably has a SS card or passport or some other kind of ID that would validate her vote. Then again I’m not living in the NYC projects where I imagine a higher percentage of the population doesn’t have proper identification.
So this is where the democrats start whining. Young people and minorities are more likely to vote democrat (just my thinking, but I’m sure there are some studies that show this is the general trend). Also, young people and minorities are less likely to have proper identification. So the democrats, in trying to save some of their key demographics, are raising a big fuss over these voter ID laws. But they are not doing so because of some objection to the substance, validity, or benefit of the law, but because the law will potentially diminish the amount of people that vote democrat.
So why do we want this law in the first place? There must have been some event that spurred its creation. I imagine it was a bunch of non-citizens (is that a word?) that managed to cast votes. Indeed, that would motivate me to write and pass such a law as the one we’ve been discussing. But then what would I say to the democrats? What would I say to the citizens in the US that can’t vote because they don’t have proper identification? I would say “Get some proper identification and then you can vote!” It’s as simple as that! How much does a driver’s license cost? $15? I know, I too find it outrageous for a small piece of rectangular plastic, but it’s manageable. I’m not sure how one goes about getting a SS card or a birth certificate, but aren’t those similar processes? Does anyone know the easiest way to obtain proper identification from the government? For me and I imagine the vast majority of the voting population, it has always been extremely easy, even if mundane, to get government issued ID’s.
Here’s another point that might come off as a little brash. If a certain citizen does not have enough money to get a proper ID, they probably don’t have enough money to stay politically informed. If they’re not politically informed, would they be voting? I don’t think so. In my experience, not even all those who are aware of the current political scene end up voting. So I imagine that those who are not politically informed vote even less often. This argument just serves to say that those who don’t have ID’s are less likely to be politically informed and less likely to cast a sincere and seriously considered vote. Don’t get me wrong, they still have the right to vote, it’s just that they are less likely to do so.
So that’s my spiel. I’ll try to do some research and find some hard numbers. As of right now, it seems to me that democrats are just complaining about a good law because it weakens them in the fall election.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Thoughts on Gay Rights
This is gonna be a shorter post because I think this topic is quite simple. If a man wants to marry another man, he should be free to do so. It's a free country, right? It doesn't harm me in any way if two lesbians get married. So let them do it!
Say I want to marry my boyfriend. Has the government impinged on my freedom by not allowing me to do so? I think yes, it has. But oh, your religion thinks it's sinful for me to be a homosexual? Kindly get your religious beliefs out of my government.
I believe in a separation of church and state. It's alarming to me the number of religious people who don't. The Constitution, my supreme argumentative reference, even says this at the end of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Catch that last bit? The Founding Fathers made sure that people of any religion could hold public office. Maybe they believed in a strong union of church and state but in fairness allowed people of any religion to hold public office and pass certain laws concerning religious issues. Maybe they agreed with me in thinking that church and state should be separated, the government not making any laws concerning religion. Is gay rights a religious issue? Sure. Is it a freedom issue? More so, in my opinion.
I think the Founders believed in a separation of church and state. The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Congress can't adopt a certain religion or stop you from practicing yours. The leads me to believe that the Founders wanted government do it's job completely separate from the church. Then why are all the religious people shouting at the government to outlaw gay marriage? Because they don't understand this.
I've got more thoughts about this topic than I thought. I might write more about it later. Get those comments flowing; I wanna know what everyone thinks.
Say I want to marry my boyfriend. Has the government impinged on my freedom by not allowing me to do so? I think yes, it has. But oh, your religion thinks it's sinful for me to be a homosexual? Kindly get your religious beliefs out of my government.
I believe in a separation of church and state. It's alarming to me the number of religious people who don't. The Constitution, my supreme argumentative reference, even says this at the end of Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Catch that last bit? The Founding Fathers made sure that people of any religion could hold public office. Maybe they believed in a strong union of church and state but in fairness allowed people of any religion to hold public office and pass certain laws concerning religious issues. Maybe they agreed with me in thinking that church and state should be separated, the government not making any laws concerning religion. Is gay rights a religious issue? Sure. Is it a freedom issue? More so, in my opinion.
I think the Founders believed in a separation of church and state. The 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Congress can't adopt a certain religion or stop you from practicing yours. The leads me to believe that the Founders wanted government do it's job completely separate from the church. Then why are all the religious people shouting at the government to outlaw gay marriage? Because they don't understand this.
I've got more thoughts about this topic than I thought. I might write more about it later. Get those comments flowing; I wanna know what everyone thinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)