The Pew Research Center has released some interesting data on the demographics of the election. The teaser is here on the blog with a link to more info to those who want it, via the blue Pew Research Center.

An important bit of data revealed that Obama won the moderate vote. While Democrats have captured the moderate vote for the past 5 elections, this past election the results were dramatic and significantly more moderates were identified as the swing vote. What does all this tell us? Are moderates sick of some of the conservative social values the Republicans always seem to mire in? Are people just voting against the Religious Right?

Inquiring minds want to know and the anti group is never shy about sharing their respective opinions.

[ed note: The chart is small. I attempted to make it larger. It got blurrier. If the print is too small use the link to the original site.]

32 thoughts on “Election Disaggregated Data: Obama Wins Moderate Vote

  1. NotGregLetiecq

    Many have expressed a fear of one party rule, but I would prefer one party rule until and unless the Republican party rejects the politics of hate, even in regional contests where they think it might help them win. The world is too small to use hate and fear in North Carolina and progressive bipartisanship in Oregon and think the two constituencies won’t hear about each other (notice they lost both Senate races). And, once Palin/McCain started their national hate parade, it was all over: the moderates had had enough.

    For decades the GOP has implemented policies that help only the super rich, and made up for this at the polls by pitting majorities against minorities. Now that the majorities are getting less reliably ignorant, I would like to see the GOP abandon hate politics, throw people like Letiecq and Stewart out of the party, and ask themselves how they would govern if they DIDN’T rely on hateful, ignorant, and resentful voters.

    The ideas they would come up with would be quite similar to the Democrats, and the distictions would be less obvious (more work for voters). But this would be better than having to choose between good government that is not always advertised effectively, and bad government compensated for by hate politics. For most moderates, that’s no choice at all.

  2. Well, looks like we moderates, all a bunch of Socialists, Marxists, and terrorists, are ruling the country now. Hooray for us!! 🙂

  3. ShellyB

    I hope Corey Stewart runs for governor and Sarah Palin is the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, and 2028. I wouldn’t support Palin in 2032 because by then she could easily have learned some basic civics and even a bit about foreign policy.

    But Corey Stewart is welcome to run for governor forever.

  4. Shelly, please don’t mention the word “Stewart” and “governor” in the same sentence.

    You’re scaring me.

  5. michael

    What is missing in these numbers, are the demographics of Male and Female voters, and votes by religious group. These numbers are even more revealing than Moderate, Conservative, Liberal breakouts. The religious group segments would be even more revealing if they were broken into immature vs mature religious segments (more than 10 years of serious religious study, less than 10 years of serious religious study) and you would find that the segment of the population that voted for McCain were the white, immature Christians (Christians with less than 10 years of biblical study), while the segment that voted with Obama were the White, Black and Hispanic, mature Christians with more than 10 years of Biblical study). This is not the number of years spent going to church, but spent seriously reading the Bible or other religious faith documents.
    Obviously 95% of all Blacks voted for Obama, a number seriously questioning a racial preference and racial hatred segment in that population. Here is the reason for why the religious numbers are more revealing:
    Immature religious people (of all faiths), read little scripture, though they may attend religious gatherings on a regular basis, they tend to only know what pastor’s or other interpreters of religious doctrine tell them. This Doctrine of MAN is very often highly political (rule-based), and very often a doctrine of man and not a doctrine of God. Those religious people who study more deeply the entire message of the religion, tend to “get the message” after about 10 years of serious study, that religion is about the relation between God and man, not about how man treats man, and through a deep understanding of AGAPE love are told not to persecute and oppress others even if they are wrong (that is God’s job). Immature religious people (of all faiths) believe God is telling them to persecute and oppress all of mankind, because their pastors (or other leaders) are teaching them political doctrine out of scope of the scriptures, and are telling them more than to look at their just their own behavior and change it. Rather than change just their own, they make the non-doctrinal leap to also oppress and change the lives and relationship behavior of everyone else around them. Especially fervent and radical religious people, make the enourmous leap into HATRED to accomplish this and see the politics of religious hatred, executed by a government entity as the mass execution mechanism to accomplish the desires of their hatred.

    THIS IS THE REASON THE FOUNDERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION SEPARATED CHURCH AND STATE and WHY RELIGIOUS HISTORY IS FULL OF CATHOLIC(VATICAN gone wrong and political) and MUSLIM POLITICAL STATE-BACKED GLOBAL WARFARE.
    The moderates finally realized those same religious zealots (not the kinder, gentler majority of religious people) were secretely (by not disclosing religious zealotry in political campaining) in control of the government.

    After the third time of seeing such deceit and playing to peoples fear of invasion by Un-patriotic Americans (really meaning oppressive Christians who want religious law imposed on all Americans), they decided to vote against such people continuing in power in the government.

  6. michael

    Once the nation decides to treat all men as equals, and to eliminate all political group association with genders, races, ethnic groups and religions as illegal and destructive to peace and harmony, then the only social issues will be people’s personal relationship with God, and the rights of “individuals” to decide what God thinks is best for them by their own interpretation of scripture, and to work that out with God, not the US government. The US government is responsible for the general welfare and rights (and law) of “individuals” who harm other individuals, not right for “gender, ethnic, racial and ethnic groups to harm “individuals not belonging to their “political group”.

    This is why group based gender, racial, ethnic, and religious voting blocks, political groups and Political Action Committees (PACS) that sponsor such “groups” is so evil and damaging to “individual rights”. This is why “individuals” have lost “DEMOCRACY” which is a government of “individuals”, by individuals and for individuals”.

  7. michael

    Your data shows what is seriously wrong with these gender, racial, ethnic and religious politcal group voting patterns and political ideologies.
    Obama should have been elected simply because he is smarter, more moderate, more ethical and more aware of “individual” rights and democracy process and meaning than the radical Religious vote that McCain and Palin pandered to and lost by. You can blame all of that on Newt Gingrich, historically, and Bush’s primary political campaign funding raiser (many call crook). i.e. see the fanatical religious funding history and secracy behind Tom DeLay (Delany) and associates.

  8. michael

    That does not mean I support “illegal” immigrants. For a lot of practical, ethical, financial and resource availablity reasons, I firmly believe we need to control our population growth and to let only those people who are highly skilled into our country if we are to have any successful, healthy and stable future when oil is gone and when the globe heats up, causing massive population starvation. That means on “legal” people come in, “illegal people” are returned from where they came, and only highly skilled “legal” people are let across our borders. This is not in any way based on race, religion, gender or ethnic group, but entirely on the law and needs of our nation, our continued survival of democracy and our continued survival period, using “law”, illegal and legal behavior concepts to secure our future for everyone in the US “BY DEMOCRATIC LAW”. “illegal” is not democratic law, it is criminal “autocracy”.

  9. Moon-howler

    Michael, I believe the data you are looking for is in the article. Click on the link. You are really asking human beings to go against their nature, I fear.

    In general………

    What if McCain had ventured out with a more liberal VP choice trying to court the moderates rather than trying to shore up the Religious Right? Could he have won?

  10. –What is missing in these numbers, are the demographics of Male and Female voters, and votes by religious group.–

    Michael, I thought you HATED that kind of thing. Aren’t you the one who wants to be rid of racial/religious/gender-based distinctions?

  11. michael

    MH, human beings must “go against their nature” to be fair and equitable to all “individuals”. The civil rights movement historically forced humans to “go against their nature”. Lets not slide back into the dark ages of ethnic group, gender, racial and religious based politics and law, by supporting “just your own kind into political power”. That leads to facism, and eventually ethnic group oppression by one politically prominant “diversity” group over another.

    Yes, if he had chosen a more liberal VP and supported efforts to prevent “illegal” immigration and showed he had the courage to offset his “impulsiveness” with truth about law and democracy rather than political appeal to racial, ethnic, gender and religious groups, I believe he would have won the critical moderate vote and the election. He miscalculated the power of the fanatical religious right. The future elections already show from these numbers that people will wrongly vote for race, gender, religion and ethnic groups now, until such political groups are made “illegal” and discriminatory to operate. The swing vote will now always be the “thinking” moderates, who look at the “legalities of issues” and “corruption in power”, that historically has always come from the criminal political elements of racial, gender, ethnic and religious group zealots.

    If I understand you, are you supporting the “nature of people” over doing what is right for all “individuals”? If you do, then I would recommend you take a serious look at the democratic parties ideology to “follow human nature” after the civil war and from which the KKK rose to politcal heights, until “moderates” stopped such radical behavior in government. Lincoln was a moderate who did not follow “human nature”.

  12. michael

    Yes I hate using demographics, my point was WHY is it missing? If we don’t see it then it is because the numbers have political motivation and manipulation behind them. This is my point about why it is wrong to carve the nation up this way, and will continue to be wrong as long as we use gender, race, religion and ethnic groups to define ourselves.

  13. michael

    More correctly “define ourselves politically”.

  14. Leila

    Michael, why didn’t you even bother to look at the link? Of course there were data on men and women voted in the Pew Research just as could be found in the charts prepared by all kinds of other organizations.

    You see conspiracies where none exist. No surprise there. If you don’t find the data interesting, ignore it.

    Again you talk, as usual, about “eliminating” various forms of association in this country. That is both highly unprobable and unconstitutional.

  15. Personally, I LIKE defining myself as a woman, Michael…….because I am one. I don’t think I should be forced to deny that to suit anyone’s comfort level.

  16. Moon-howler

    Michael, actually all week I have been reading about blacks reacting to the election and listened to so many people say ‘if only my mother or father had been here to see this,’ or ‘I never thought I would live to see this day.’ It must seem wonderful and something that I, as a white person, will never totally understand or feel.

    Many of us felt a sense of pride when Hillary ran as president, or Sarah Palin ran for vice president. (although usually not the same set of women) People like to feel that people with their own attributes can become president, rather than feeling disenfranchised or somehow denied.

    Perhaps if you were not a white male you might have more empathy for what I am saying. My religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with any of this, although I imagine being a Catholic and experiencing JFK being elected was thrilling to some.

  17. michael

    The data was missing from the teaser for a reason. That is my point. I don’t need to go to the link, because I’m not interested in the demographics as much as the “political message” portrayed by the Pew teaser. Numbers are used for a reason, others are left out for a reason (especially the religious demographic numbers in this case, and the main topic of my debate point). So don’t nit pick me to death. Try following the logical argument of the debate instead. The election was “won” by moderate, mature Christians who were “white” voting against “immature” radical Christians who were “white” for a black man who himself is not a racist, but whose race that voted for him is 95% racist.
    I’m saying “reason: and “intellect” in this case overcame racial prejudice, and that is itself a virtue that people can “go against their nature” to do the right thing for the nation.
    Leila, I said NOTHING about conspiracy, that is your own self-inserted concept and misunderstanding of my words. (so common here, I feel like AWCHENEY arguing with people who don’t listen, just nit pick and attack for no principal other than they don’t like the messenger).

    OK so lets say I “support” gender, racial, ethnic and religious group “political” associations as a “moral high ground”.

    So since I am a male, I should LIKE defining myself as a MALE (whatever I feel like) because I am one, and lets say I join MALE ONLY political action committees (Freedom of association), and support only MALE focused laws, and I only VOTE for MALE candidates. I could extend that desire to do what is “natural” as Moonhowler says I should, and make sure I only identify with “white people”, only vote for white people, only associate with white political action groups (freedom of association) and since I am a religious person, I only choose to “associate” with “protestants” , because doing any of the above is “moral”, “natural”, highly probable and “constitutional”.
    Please people, give me a break in your twisted sense of logic!

    I’m sure the rest of you will absolutely support me in my new found right to be “self identified” politically and will deeply support me if I always vote only for my own selfish gender, racial, ethnic and religious group special interests.

    Will that make any of you happier than my more morally sound “despising” of such ideology, political corruption, lack of DEMOCRACY and moral ignorance?

    I think some of you will just argue for anything as long as it supports your “ethnic social agenda” and “ethnic political group” goals.

  18. michael

    Or “gender social agenda” and “gender politcal group” goals. We already had a “religious social agenda” and religious political group” agenda, that was called the MCCain/Palin ticket, and what’s left of the republican party. Do you want more of the same, only racially, gender, and ethnically based next time? If you do, we are all political morons if we believe there is any fairness to “individuals” and “individual rights” after that.

  19. Elena

    Michael,
    Listening to the stories of my father and godfather, who worked to help bring equality for all people, especially the poor, and having found great joy in the election of President Obama, I find your comments fairly simplistic and immature. when you have been the dominant power for, well, forever,in the U.S., it IS of consequence that someone different has broken through that barrier. That you choose to ignore that significant fact is your loss of how incredible this moment in American history truly is.

  20. Moon-howler

    Michael, you are grouchy tonight and I didn’t attack you. I thought we were exchanging ideas. I don’t think anyone else attacked you either.

    My only point to you is, because you are a white male, you have been represented. As a white female, I have not been represented at the presidential level. I do not that that is as important in America as race. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think so.

    Also, the teaser was MY doing, not anyone else’s. I put out the chart that gave the most information. I provided the link thinking that intellectually curious people would continue reading. I didn’t leave out gender for any specific reason. Not everything fits on a thread lead. One must make choices.

  21. michael

    “People like to feel that people with their own attributes….” is the very definition of “racism”. Racism is politically “defining, creating law, and associating only with people by their racial and ethnic attributes” .

  22. michael

    I’m not grouchy tonight MH I am only arguing “principle”. You read grouchyness in my non-emotional response. The choices you made were then made based on some internal rationale. To prove your “moderate” conclusion (not that that was wrong). I simply pointed out that equally important information was also left out.

  23. michael

    We are exchanging ideas.

  24. michael

    You are entitled to your opinion Elena. I think it is far from simplistic, and the history of the event does not escape me. Hoever unlike some I do not dwell in the past, for what my grandfathers did or did not do. The reason for the vote is not just what a 14% black community wanted to avenge for the injustice of history (that is immature and simplistic), but to measue how far the “majority” of all people “in power as you say” have been able to make a vote for once “independant” of race, gender, and ethnic group. Notice I did not say religious group, because that’s what the voting war was over radical Christian control of the government for the next four years or not. That is far from simplistic too.
    I am cautioning all future votes if go that way if “minorities” continue to vote only for their race, gender or ethnic group, instead of the quality and capability of the candidate. When all RACES, GENDERS, RELIGIONS and ETNIC VOTES SPLIT roughly 50-50, THEN WE WILL have achieveed a great thing and the “Moderates” will then swing all elections, as they have done this time, based entirely on the “law” and “national issues”. This election was about “state rights” losing out to “individual rights”, by the one segment of the population capable of rising above race, gender, religion and ethnic group. That is FAR from simplistic.

  25. michael

    As a “female” of any color, you have been represented by my “maleness” in politcal issues for 25 years and in some cases even more. If you had not been you would not have a single job, vote, seat in the house or in the senate, or even “run” for a presidential candidacy. Don’t show comtempt for what the modern day “male” has given you in terms of equality by telling me I can’t empathise with the “female” gender. If Hillary had been a good candidate (she was not) I would have voted for her. What “equality” have “females” given males that “males” really want? I seriously doubt the reverse is true.

  26. Moon-howler

    Not sure I understand that last paragraph.

    Michael, it is human nature to want to be with people you have something in common with. That concept permeates the entire animal kingdom. I don’t think that we should make laws that exclude others but I do think you are discounting some fairly fundamental behaviors.

    Until you have not had full rights, it is very hard to empathis with another. I can never pretend to understand the black experience. By the same token, men cannot understand what it is like to be female and for the playing field not to be level.

  27. LOL! Michael, women have had to fight “maleness” for their own rights. Talk to the suffragists who SUFFERED under your kind of “maleness.” They were beaten and killed just for the right to vote and own property. No one needs your kind of “maleness.”

    You have issues with women and ethnic groups, Michael. This comes through loud and clear in your posts.

  28. hello

    Hopefully in 4 years you won’t see this article, “Obama loses moderate vote” due to governing too far to the left. Moderates voted for Obama because they believe he will be just that, moderate. If he lets the left dictate what happens in the next few years I don’t see him getting re-elected.

  29. Moon-howler

    Hello, I think that is a good point.
    After an election, many people have the tendency to come in and remind the elected one what they did to him him/her elected. I hope Obama stays true to the middle, where the vast majority of us lie.

  30. hello

    Could not agree with you more Moon… (am I the only one that calls you Moon? If so, maybe Ill start call you howler). Yeah, I didn’t support Omaba as a candidate but I do support him as the president of the United States. I only hope that he sticks with and stays true to the people that got him elected, moderates. Going too far to the left would only result in one thing, political suicide. That would be SUCH a shame considering the hope that his victory has instilled in such a vast majority of Americans.

  31. Moon-howler

    Moon is just fine, Hello. MH might even be shorter. Your choice.

    I could have awakened the next morning and lived with either candidate winning. Many people have such high hopes I really hope he brings about good change rather than far left change. I really think he will do the right thing. (and for the life of me, I don’t know why I think that)

  32. michael

    Some people read what they want to read, whether it is true or not. I suggest those disagreeing with what I said, go back and read what I wrote, before you “assume” I or any other modern person have in any way caused the injustice of the laws changed by the suffrage movement. Like I said, some people just live in the past, with past hatred and past beliefs defining how they treat people today. They have no ability to understand “individual” rights, individual freedom or “equality” for what it really is. Equality is not “equality of groups” (genders, races, religions or ethnic groups), but “equality of indivduals” under common laws. That is why what has been “assumed” I say, is not what I say and the “counterdebaters” made wrong by poor assumptions and reliance on emotional beliefs more than “facts”…

Comments are closed.