Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
Dems picked up 2 seats thanks to Tea Party extremists.
Indeed!
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
The numbers have flipped since then. OBAMA 57,538,411 or 50.0% ROMNEY 55,720,745 or 48.4%
Yes media was trying to focus on pop vootes inspite of west coast results not having been in.
CNBC is trying to paint this as anti business.
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
Immigrants help Democrats
So Obama (50.4% of the popular vote, 303 seats) won. Obama won 26 of the 50 States, Romney 24, Florida still being counted
Blacks and Hispanics played a big part in Bill Clinton (1992 & 1996) and Obama (2008 and 2012) winning their elections. Without the minorities, the Democrats might be unelectable!
Blacks (who make up 20% of the US population or roughly around 60 million) and Hispanics, traditionally vote for the Democrats. 97% of black people voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, 95% blacks voted for Obama in 2008. 72% Hispanics voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, 67% Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008.
Despite his popularity and charisma, even Bill Clinton got only 39 and 43 percent of the white vote in 1992 and 1996
The Republican voters are wealthier and whiter
**Republicans can rightly claim that they won more area **(look at the map below. It is all red or republican in the centre) but (perhaps because the states that support them are thinly populated) less electoral college seats.
BBC News - US 2012 election results
A large majority of immigrants (blacks, hispanics and Asians) live along the east (New York) and West (California etc.) coasts of America
One other thing that favoured Obama was that Americans generally re-elect their leaders for a second term. Five of the last seven US Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush and Obama) won a second term. Bush Sr. and Carter being exceptions
Republicans have not won a US Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
The Republican party has been forced to come to terms with an inconvenient truth; they can no longer rely on a White majority
Perhaps middle class Americans do not approve of the Republican brand of politics anymore after so many wars and so much bloodshed. Republicans have always been warmongers because their election campaigns are largely funded by war lobbies. Republicans started wars in Vietnam (Eisenhower), Iraq (George H. W. Bush), and Afghanistan (George W Bush)
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
Once again, the world has witnessed the passion and faith American voters have for war criminals and protectors of banksters. It is remarkable, really, the continuity of the American looting and mass murdering project. The US military has turned the Persian Gulf into its own bloody bath tub, in fulfillment of the Carter Doctrine. Democratic Carter cited the Soviet threat, but he was also aiming to keep the Arabs in line, to prevent another oil boycott that would cripple this country. It doesn’t take much of a gas disruption to sow chaos here, as shown by Hurricane Sandy. A gas junkie will kill and rob to feed his habit, then become even more ape**** should his supply run dry. He’ll shoot you before, during and after, and call it love for you, god and democracy.
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
^ ditto!!
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
There was a good analysis posted on dawn.com a few days ago. It explains why the general trend among paki-americans has shifted from voting republican to voting democtatic and the factors that have been at play.
US elections 2012: Pakistani-Americans look within
While the voting pattern of Pakistani-Americans remains largely unstudied, one can discover a complex array of political beliefs held amongst this group. The lack of uniformity is partly due to the varying socio-economic status of Pakistani-Americans but also relates to the absence of institutions that are formally engaged in political campaigns. However, for the 2012 presidential race, it seems that Pakistani-Americans are poised to replay the 2008 election, by supporting Barack Obama over his stance on domestic issues.
The results of a recent BBC poll indicate that while there has been overwhelming support for Obama’s re-election worldwide, some Pakistanis favour Romney, probably over the president’s unpopular drone policy and the Abbottabad raid to kill Osama bin Laden. This seems to have carried over in some way to the Pakistani-American community. Raakin Iqbal, a Pakistani-American entrepreneur, **on his blog**wrote that he interfaced with a few Pakistani-Americans who were supporting Romney because they were against Obama’s drone wars.
However, this does not seem to be an overwhelming trend, considering both Romney and Obama have advocated the continued use of drones. In fact, unlike most elections, the two candidates have little disagreement over their militaristic intentions concerning Pakistan.
The Republican support among certain Pakistanis can be contextualised further. In the past, the majority of Pakistani-Americans had supported the Republican Party partly because they felt the Republicans favoured Pakistan and the Democrats sided with India. This seemed true to some extent since Republican presidents have favoured a “blank cheque” approach with Pakistan’s military dictators as opposed to the Democrats who took a harder stance in comparison.
This pattern worked in favour of the Republican party until the “war on terror” began and as civil liberties of Pakistani-Americans were constricted, so did their support for the Republican party. These events led to an overwhelming participation in the 2008 elections by Pakistanis in support of Barack Obama. Pakistani-American groups even helped raise funds for Obama in the Washington Metro area, as well as in other urban hubs around the country.
The enthusiasm of the Pakistani-American community was surprising considering the debate between the 2008 election candidates – Obama and John McCain – during which McCain advocated for a softer approach towards Pakistan’s newly-elected civilian government, as opposed to Obama who had categorically asserted that his administration could take unilateral military action in Pakistani territory.
Despite his militaristic rhetoric with respect to Pakistan, Obama has enjoyed overwhelming support from Pakistani-Americans, which validates the thesis by Pakistani American academic and intellectual Adil Najam.Najam explained in his book “Portrait of a Giving Community” that the diaspora community was less concerned about what a candidate would do about Pakistan and more concerned about what he or she would do on the domestic front.
The increased focus on domestic issues is perhaps best exemplified through anecdotes from members of Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI)’s American chapter, some of whom are mulling voting for Obama despite Imran Khan’s absolute rejection of his drone program.
Najam’s thesis also helps explain why Pakistanis supported the Republican Party in the past in the context of the economic class of immigrants who settled in the US prior to 1991. America’s immigration policy at the time only allowed professionals to immigrate. Unlike subsequent blue collar immigrants who were granted green cards, these professionals became part of the American upper class. Consequently, the Republican Party’s pro-rich policy appealed to a large percentage of them.
However, this pattern has partially changed due to a greater diversification of the economic status among Pakistani-American immigrants. Therefore, when one considers that the blue collar immigrants who moved to the US after 1991 are getting closer to retirement age, they are increasingly concerned about being provided government-subsidised healthcare.
It is evident to these voters that Romney has been voicing opposition to Obama’s policy of providing government assistance to the poor, sick, and elderly citizens and that may cost him the support of this section of older Pakistani Americans.
Even the Pakistani professional community has embraced Obama, despite the negative effect it may have on their tax rates, since Obama would require the rich to pay for increased governmental programs.
Pakistani-American physician Dr Mohammad Taqi says most of his Pakistani-American colleagues would be voting for Obama and some have even contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign.However, on an institutional level, Dr Taqi said that the Association of Pakistani Physicians in North America, of which he is a member, was a non-profit organisation, which means it could not legally contribute to any campaign.Moreover, mosques and other professional organisations that have a large membership scope are all classified as non-profit organisations and so there has been an absence of formal organisations that raise and contribute money on behalf of Pakistani-Americans for election campaigns.
Regardless, on an individual level, members of mosques and professional organisations seem to be in favour of Obama.
Iqbal, the entrepreneur who is also a youth organiser for the Noor Islamic Center in Woodbridge, Virginia, said most people at the centre support Obama. Though there is little data to indicate that these Pakistanis are contributing to Obama’s campaign financially, it seems that they would show their support at the ballot box.
Much of this support for the Democratic party can be traced back to a more recent radical shift within the Republican Party. Since 2008, the rise of the Tea Party and other extreme right-wing groups has forced the Republicans to shift far to the right. This has caused many moderate Republicans, like Olympia Snowe, to refuse running for re-election on behalf of an increasingly extremist party platform.
The flight of old-guard Republicans, some of Pakistani descent, is not surprising when one looks to the way in which the party has catered to extremists. Some among the extremist elements in the party even advocate for xenophobic policies that are discriminatory to Latinos as well as Muslim-Americans.
This type of hateful rhetoric from the Republican Party is especially repulsive and frightening for the Pakistani-American youth who have grown up in the post-9/11 era where many of them have been subjected to increasing forms of discrimination.
Young individuals genuinely fear a Republican presidency based on this recent history.
Afghan-American journalist Josh Sharyar says young Pakistani-Americans are characteristically geared towards supporting Obama because most are “university-educated, young and a minority”, making them logical supporters of the Democratic Party.
The support for Obama from young and old Pakistani-Americans alike has not been orchestrated by specialised institutions but has occurred on an individual level.
Moreover, the flight of support from Pakistani-Americans for the Republican Party has strong links to the increased radicalism within the party as well as to the damage done by the policies taken up by the Bush administration and the “war on terror”.
These factors come coupled with increased socio-economic diversity of Pakistani-Americans. And this is why, it seems that many in the Pakistani-American community will vote for Obama – to censure the Republicans, who along with harbouring members with extremist views also pose a threat to government assistance to the poor and the elderly.
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
And did you guys see Colorado legalized POT? hummmmm
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
**How they voted
**
Obama 50.5% (332 electoral college votes) Romney 47.9% (206 electoral votes)
BBC News - US 2012 election results
The Republican party is increasingly seen by many as anti-minorities, anti-woman and anti-abortion (I am talking from US citizens’ perspective) and anti-low income earners or atleast less beneficial for these groups (if not outright anti)
Blacks account for 20% of US population of 312.8 million. All minorities account for 36% (or 112.6 million strong) of the population
Romney lost despite winning almost 60% of the White vote!
Republicans clearly cannot afford to ignore 112.6 million people in the next election
- Age
Obama more popular among young voters
Romney more popular among old voters
18-29: 60% (Obama), 37% (Romney)
30-44: 52% (Obama), 45% (Romney)
45-64: 47% (Obama), 51% (Romney)
65+: 44% (Obama), 56% (Romney)
- Gender/Sex
Obama more popular among female voters
Romney more popular among male voters
**- Male: **45% (Obama), 52% (Romney)
**Female: **55% (Obama), 44% (Romney)
- Race:
Obama more popular among minorities. Obama’s 39% White vote is down from 43% in 2008
**
Democrats and the White vote
**President Obama and the white vote? No problem.
White: 39% (Obama), 59% (Romney)
Black: 93% (Obama), 6% (Romney)
Hispanic: 71% (Obama), 27% (Romney)
Asian: 73% (Obama), Romney (26%)
Other: 58% (Obama), 38% (Romney)
- Annual Income
Romney more popular among wealthier voters
< $50,000: 60% (Obama), 38% (Romney)
$51-100,000: 46% (Obama), 52% (Romney)
$100,000: 44% (Obama), 54% (Romney)
Re: US Elections 2012 - Results
**Kennedy: I’m glad Obama won but I want Hillary to be next president
**Kennedy: I
Hillary is expected to resign as US foreign secretary in January 2013 and be replaced by John Kerry
Bill Clinton has also urged Hillary (who would be 69 in 2016) to run for presidency. With Bill (who helped Obama in both election campaigns in 2008 and 2012) and Obama supporting her election campaign, she has got a good chance of becoming the first woman US President in 2016.
So it could be Republican Jeb Bush Jeb Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia v Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016