The Unintended Consequences of Minority Turnout (US)

[Pangloss]

We've been talking in another thread about the passage in three states of laws banning gay marriage. One of the interesting reasons being discussed in the media and amongst analysts is the idea that the passage happened as a result of large minority turnout -- specifically African American voters. They may have been 96% in favor of Obama, but 70% of them also voted against gay marriage. In one sense they saved Democrats, putting their man in office at the most critical moment ever. But in so doing they also helped deal a severe blow to a major progressive cause.

 

And that is not the only issue they differ with politically correct progressives on. What I'm wondering today is: Did Democrats get the message? And how will they respond? Will these new voters get a seat at the table, or will they be asked to chill out and don't muss their pretty little 'fro's over real issues?

 

This is, in my opinion, a fascinating example of how the political left in this country is not "all one thing". Gloria Steinem can come on Oprah and talk about how the election of Obama is national referendum on all fronts of the progressive movement, and Bill Maher can talk about "the right tribe" winning and all that, but the truth of the matter is that Democrats are just as diverse and eclectic as Republicans have been, if not more so.

 

If anything this election, with Democrats capturing the big-tent moderates, increases that stress, and it will be interesting to see how Democrats deal with that. When Republicans had their "mandate" they traded it in for major progress on such fronts as Terri Schiavo, creationism and prayer in public schools. What will Democrats do? Will this become an opportunity to get the guns, demolish the nuclear power plants and put a condom, some KY gell, and a guide to safe drug use in the hands of every 10 year old? Or will they listen to the concerns of their newest voters?

 

What do you think?

Edited November 10, 2008 by Pangloss

[npts2020]

I think they will be just like the congresses I have witnessed in the last 30-40 years and continue to hand over societal and individual rights and resources to corporate interests.

[Riogho]

God, that is one thing I hate about liberals. The entire one-size fits all policy. Because most kids in America are obese our school system passed some ban on any food containing more than 100 calories.

 

I am severely underweight and can't get more than 250 calories during a school lunch, and am losing weight because of it. This is why big government is bad.

 

Big government runs on the idea that most people are stupid, and they need someone to tell them the simple things, like what to eat. In my opinion, if you are too stupid to put down the fork, you deserve to be fat, it is not the governments job to do anything about it. Stuff like that is government for the stupid, by the stupid. The only problem is, most people are stupid and NEED the government to tell them not to eat too many cookies.

 

Screw stupid people.

/rant

 

If you weer wondering where that came from, it was a reaction to abolishing nuclear power plants (because stupid people think they are unsafe), and the handing everyone a condom comment.

[Sisyphus]

I'm also curious to see how things will turn out. It could be argued that the analogous fissures in the Republican party (neocons vs. libertarians vs. Bible thumpers etc.) are responsible for Bush's spectacular unpopularity, since they tried to satisfy everyone and inevitably satisfied almost nobody. Similarly, at times when the Democrats have been pushed out, it's been because they managed to alienate one or more of their factions. It's probably a main reason why the pendulum effect is inevitable. There is probably no possible approach to government that will long be satisfactory to a majority of a nation of 300 million. And to the unsatisfied, the opposition looks better, even if they will ultimately be unsatisfying for their own reasons.

[big314mp]

God, that is one thing I hate about liberals. The entire one-size fits all policy. Because most kids in America are obese our school system passed some ban on any food containing more than 100 calories.

 

I am severely underweight and can't get more than 250 calories during a school lunch, and am losing weight because of it. This is why big government is bad.

 

 

I'd imagine that this could be challenged fairly easily. If you talked to the school board, you could probably get the policy removed. Or at least get it changed to an "opt in" type policy.

 

Or you could start packing sack lunches.

[iNow]

You could then try justifying your assignment of blame on to this broad lumpy category called "liberals."

[Riogho]

I define the word liberal just as it is used in conversation.

 

To apply something liberally, to much of.

 

If you want too much of something (government control or bananas) then you are a liberal.

[D H]

If you want too much of something (government control or bananas) then you are a liberal.

 

I am severely underweight and can't get more than 250 calories during a school lunch, and am losing weight because of it.

 

So I guess that makes you yet another "I want a big free lunch" liberal.

 

TANSTAAFL.

[Riogho]

No, I'm willing to pay for the food I get. And it's not the amount of food they give us (which is decent) it's WHAT they give us.

 

For example, today at lunch they served:

 

Salad, Peaches, Pears, and Grapes.

 

How many calories do you think that entails? Not enough for 1/3 of your daily intake. Unless you're fat.

[Phi for All]

I define the word liberal just as it is used in conversation.

 

To apply something liberally, to much of.

We've decided you don't deserve a liberal education.

 

Dems need to understand that while caring that people's basic needs are met, too much caring is not good. And Reps need to understand that the greatest country on earth needs to include some social awareness in their small government.

 

There is no definition of liberal I can find anywhere that implies an excess. It can mean "broad-minded", it can mean "tolerant", it can mean "a great deal", but nowhere is it supposed to mean "too much".

[padren]

I'm also curious to see how things will turn out. It could be argued that the analogous fissures in the Republican party (neocons vs. libertarians vs. Bible thumpers etc.) are responsible for Bush's spectacular unpopularity, since they tried to satisfy everyone and inevitably satisfied almost nobody. Similarly, at times when the Democrats have been pushed out, it's been because they managed to alienate one or more of their factions. It's probably a main reason why the pendulum effect is inevitable. There is probably no possible approach to government that will long be satisfactory to a majority of a nation of 300 million. And to the unsatisfied, the opposition looks better, even if they will ultimately be unsatisfying for their own reasons.

 

I think you can get away with that to a degree as long as you are successful in improving the overall state of things.

 

Had Bush handled the economy better, or found Bin Laden, or even WMDs in Iraq, people who would still disagree with his ideology/means would at least respect him for his accomplishments.

 

It's when you alienate people and go your own way to fail spectacularly (and bring everyone more suffering for it) that you are regarded as Bush is now.

 

 

It is interesting though, the divides among "the left" for sure. I just hope Obama is able to do enough good early enough on, that he gains the respect of those segments that he doesn't fully appease, so they end up supporting him for making genuine improvements in the country.

[Mr Skeptic]

Screw stupid people.

/rant

 

If you weer wondering where that came from, it was a reaction to abolishing nuclear power plants (because stupid people think they are unsafe), and the handing everyone a condom comment.

 

But please, please, for the love of god, when you screw stupid people, wear a condom.

[Riogho]

We've decided you don't deserve a liberal education.

 

Dems need to understand that while caring that people's basic needs are met, too much caring is not good. And Reps need to understand that the greatest country on earth needs to include some social awareness in their small government.

 

There is no definition of liberal I can find anywhere that implies an excess. It can mean "broad-minded", it can mean "tolerant", it can mean "a great deal", but nowhere is it supposed to mean "too much".

 

A great deal is what I meant. And too much is my opinion.

[padren]

Haven't fully crunched the numbers, but this is an interesting take:

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

[iNow]

Haven't fully crunched the numbers, but this is an interesting take:

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

 

Nice find.

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting article, I agree. That goes to show you that statistics can always be analyzed in numerous ways. This election seems to have produced some really interesting numbers all over the place.

 

Just to be clear, it was not actually the proposition of this thread that the large African American turnout caused the success of Proposition 8, just that they contributed to it and that their new presence in politics is significant and will put unexpected pressures on Democrats.

[bascule]

Everything I've been reading has said the main opponents of Proposition 8 were... old people, and that the vote was decided far more by age than anything like race.

[john5746]

I think it reveals that the minority cultures may not have reflected on themselves as much as the majority. Some attitude adjustment is needed, but if the younger crowd is indeed more tolerant, then it just may happen naturally with the passing of the baton.

[ParanoiA]

KY comes in a gel?

[iNow]

Everything I've been reading has said the main opponents of Proposition 8 were... old people, and that the vote was decided far more by age than anything like race.

 

I think you meant "proponents," since Prop 8 made same sex unions illegal, not legal.

 

 

 

 

Also, it turns out that the Mormons had more of an impact than any geezer with 18th century social views. From the "Mormons FOR 8" website:

 

 

http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154

At 40%, Mormon donations make up largest group of donors to Prop. 8

 

- Individual Donors, Mormon - 40.40% ($7,615,842.43)

- Individual Donors, Other* - 29.94% ($5,643,497.71)

- Non-Mormon Organizations - 29.66% ($5,592,015.24)

*Includes “probable” Mormons not yet confirmed.

 

They raised a self-reported $7.6 million to pass this iron age discrimatory measure. Yeah, because in these trying economic times we're in, where people are starving and struggling to find shelter, what we need to devote any of our extra funds to is support toward a measure banning two people who love each other from being legally recognized by the state as wed.

 

And, it wasn't just about the money, either:

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3xrKGCR3_Lr31cirVMS_5fY_8igD94ADR9G0

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.

 

The ballot measure passed Tuesday. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/MNU1140AQQ.DTL

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition - the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop. 8 battle.

This Catholic-Mormon alliance was part of a broad pattern that underscored a critical difference between the rival campaigns: Yes on 8 sought to marshal support among many religions, while the No on 8 campaign often put religion on the sidelines.

 

"People of faith, really of every faith, believed that marriage was between man and a woman," said Frank Schubert, political consultant to the Yes on 8 campaign. "They formed the core of our volunteer operation. They were largely responsible for the 70,000 contributions we got."

 

Some clergy within the No on 8 campaign believed not enough respect was paid to religion.

Yeah! You don't respect us enough for trying to take away civil rights from people based on our bigotted views! How dare you!

 

 

Bunch of booger eating morons, the whole lot of 'em.

[Pangloss]

The Mormon story with Prop 8 is interesting. There's the hypocrisy angle, which of course they deny, claiming it's something they haven't done since the 19th century (which flies right in the face of recent examples, but perhaps you could make a fair case that it's not something they officially condone, I suppose). And there's also the angle of how they organized their opposition at a national level.

 

The latter point is of more interest to me at the moment, because while they certainly have the right to do that, it's interesting that they're suddenly being made to discover that other people have exactly the same right -- by protesting outside Mormon churches all over the country.

 

Hey, makes sense to me. Turnabout is always fair play when it comes to politics.

[Severian]

I am severely underweight and can't get more than 250 calories during a school lunch, and am losing weight because of it. This is why big government is bad.

 

You should sue.

 

As for the OP, I think this demonstrates that Obama's election success was partially based on race. He got a lot of votes from minorities because he is black, even from those who hold completely opposite political views.

[Riogho]

Yeah, the race card was played a whole lot. I find it funny though that while 47% of white's supported Obama 97% of blacks supported him as well. Maybe the racism is reversed from what was originally being slung around?

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, the race card was played a whole lot. I find it funny though that while 47% of white's supported Obama 97% of blacks supported him as well. Maybe the racism is reversed from what was originally being slung around?

 

Race being a factor is different than "playing the race card." Obviously many black people voted for Obama because of his race, but that doesn't mean he deliberately encouraged that. In fact, I'd say he was extremely careful not to do that, so he wouldn't be "the black candidate."

[iNow]

Prop 8 - The Musical

 

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black