« The iPod Nano index | Main | Love and hate »
The election: what really happened
We can't not cover this topic, so here is Andrew Gelman with the bottom line. The main result, it seems, is that the electoral gap between the young and the old increased by quite a bit. Hat tip goes to Mark Thoma.
Addendum: Brad DeLong comments.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 5, 2008 at 02:46 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Hey-
The inexperienced got wise and voted for somebody like them. We could learn a lot from our kids.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Nov 5, 2008 3:41:41 PM
Oh why not, I'll go out on a limb and set myself up... I am getting sick of this constant lecturing. If 98% (or whatever it is) of black people vote for Obama, that's not racism. But if whites vote for McCain, it's because of racism.
Tom Brokaw said Obama's win was historic because it wasn't about race. And yet if he had lost, I bet Tom Brokaw would have said it was because America wasn't ready for a black president.
I could be mistaken, but I think if it had been Colin Powell and Condi Rice on the Republican ticket, versus John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic ticket, that the racist "geezers" DeLong mocks would have turned out in droves to vote for the minorities and female, and against the politically powerful white males.
And of course, if that would have happened, DeLong would have told us it was because hick Americans don't care about blowing up foreigners.
(For the record, I can't stand George Bush and think he was an awful awful president.)
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Nov 5, 2008 3:44:37 PM
*Sigh* Re-reading my comment above, I now must take pains to prevent being misunderstood... I think Jeremiah Wright's "shocking" sermons were very provocative; they didn't offend me at all. If a black person tells me I have no idea what he puts up with on a daily basis (from cops or whatever), I have no reason to doubt him.
What bothers me is having a tenured white professor tell me how enlightened he is, and that a huge chunk of people must have opposed Obama because they are racist, rather than, say, his fairly unorthodox views.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Nov 5, 2008 4:04:49 PM
What bothers me is when a white "libertarian" tells me how enlightened he is to believe that if he permanently floods hundreds of millions of brown people out of their lifelong homes, he doesn't owe them a cent of compensation because, hey, that land isn't actually worth much anyway, and they'll just have to "deal with it".
Want to tell them what that means, Bob_Murphy, or do you want me to fill in all the wonderful details?
Posted by: Person at Nov 5, 2008 4:28:59 PM
Interesting breakdowns on race:
According to CNN's exit poll data, McCain carried 55% of the white vote; Obama carried 43%. White voters made up 74% of the total, so McCain's advantage among whites amounted to 74%x(0.55-0.43) = 8.88% of the total vote.
Obama carried 95% of the African-American vote; McCain carried 4%. African-Americans made up 13% of the total, so Obama's advantage among African-Americans amounted to 13%x(.95-.04) = 11.83%.
The black/white split swung about 3% of the vote in favor of Obama. McCain would have needed a 16-point advantage in the white vote to have overcome this.
Of course, all of this is subject to the accuracy of exit polls.
(By similar analysis, the white vote gave a 13.09% advantage to Bush, and the black vote gave a 8.47% advantage to Kerry in 04.)
Posted by: simmer down now at Nov 5, 2008 4:44:33 PM
Interesting breakdowns on race:
According to CNN's exit poll data, McCain carried 55% of the white vote; Obama carried 43%. White voters made up 74% of the total, so McCain's advantage among whites amounted to 74%x(0.55-0.43) = 8.88% of the total vote.
Obama carried 95% of the African-American vote; McCain carried 4%. African-Americans made up 13% of the total, so Obama's advantage among African-Americans amounted to 13%x(.95-.04) = 11.83%.
The black/white split swung about 3% of the vote in favor of Obama. McCain would have needed a 16-point advantage in the white vote to have overcome this.
Of course, all of this is subject to the accuracy of exit polls.
(By similar analysis, the white vote gave a 13.09% advantage to Bush, and the black vote gave a 8.47% advantage to Kerry in 04.)
Posted by: simmer down now at Nov 5, 2008 4:46:49 PM
At the end of 'Planet of the Apes" Charleton Heston comes across the statue of Liberty half-buried in the sand, understands that he has been on earth after man destroyed himself in a nuclear war and utters the line "The fools actually did it." Well, yesterday, the fools actually did it. If Obama & Co. do as they have promised we are in for a very bad decade. Protectionism, destructive taxes and regulation, etc., etc.
Posted by: at Nov 5, 2008 5:43:57 PM
Odd that the loudest voices proclaiming that America, particularly white America, would never elect a black president usually came from the left, usually from folk who trended older. Most people I know (in their 30s or younger), while cognizant of the historic significance and symbolism of the election, were not "surprised" at the outcome.
Of course, there is the fact that so many people on both sides of the aisle have grown so disillusioned with Bush and the Republicans that perhaps the heavy focus on the outcome as a breakthrough for race is badly misplaced. Either way, the fact that it has happened at all will undoubtedly have a major follow-on impact for future black candidates.
Posted by: MM at Nov 5, 2008 5:59:19 PM
The bottom line is that Obama isnt Bush and Obama was not part of Bush's political party. McCain was and he lost. In fact, after 2004-2006, it was going to be extremely difficult for any member of Bush's party to win any elected office.
The fact that Bush will soon be out of office will naturally restore some legitimacy to the Republican party. However, whether they can win back some Congressional seats in 10' and win back the presidency in 12' is gonna take some really good politicking by the Republicans. They have the ability to do it but they can not trot out another no-think politician and feel they are justified to win the executive office.
A more evolved classically liberal Republican party would very good for this country. I just dont know if the power base of the party would except the medicine.
Posted by: John Pertz at Nov 5, 2008 7:25:51 PM
I used to think the classic fairy tales were simple cautious injunctions.
Now I'm beginning to think the Pied Piper of Hamlin was a political allegory, a prophetic warning to parents not to allow the next generation to be raised by videos, public schools and a variety "its important that you tried" coaches.
Maybe Hugh Rockoff was onto a greater trend of embedded political themes in juvenile literature when he inferred that "The Wizrd of Oz" was a 19th century political allegory about William Jennings Bryan, et al.
Posted by: Superheater at Nov 5, 2008 8:34:14 PM
To a certain extent this election was a referendum on the influence of religion over politics the past 8 years: a resounding repudiation of Bush and co's "God had my back" doctrine.
Posted by: meter at Nov 5, 2008 9:17:48 PM
I wonder if those who are predicting all kinds of dire consequences from an Obama administration realize how much they resemble the nuts who kept claiming that the Bush administration was "shredding the Constitution', destroying democracy, etc.
From here it looks like our democracy is doing just fine.
Posted by: John S. at Nov 5, 2008 9:31:05 PM
If 98% (or whatever it is) of black people vote for Obama, that's not racism. But if whites vote for McCain, it's because of racism.
It is a vote for a black man rather than a vote against a white man. The distinction is in my eyes significant, it is not correct to call this (98% for Obama) racism. (not to mention that a big % of the same black people voted FOR white men in the past 2 elections and have been voting for white men for about 10 elections now?)
Posted by: svs at Nov 5, 2008 9:48:46 PM
Kudos to Gelman for his quick, clear, and well-supported analysis.
DeLong just makes himself look the fool by contrast when he pulls entirely unsupported numbers for the "party", "campaign", and "race" component out of his... ahm.
Amen to John S. The degree to which partisans become convinced by their own apocolyptic and messiantic rhetoric never ceases to amaze.
Posted by: David Wright at Nov 5, 2008 9:51:53 PM
Oh why not, I'll go out on a limb and set myself up... I am getting sick of this constant lecturing. If 98% (or whatever it is) of black people vote for Obama, that's not racism. But if whites vote for McCain, it's because of racism.
Bob, shouldn't you make sure you have all the facts before you "go out on a limb" and casually suggest someone is racist? According to Gelman, 96% of black people voted for Obama -- but 89% voted for Kerry in 2004. So the 7% differential may be composed of people who voted for Obama solely because he is black -- or it may be because of the myriad of other factors such as the financial crisis, lower overall opinions of the incumbent President, McCain's pick of Palin as running mate, etc. But the overwhelming majority of the rest voted for Obama because they simply identify with the Democratic candidate.
Posted by: Ricardo at Nov 5, 2008 10:07:12 PM
The point made by Ricardo about the number of African Americans who voted for Kerry (89%) compared with 96% for Obama is a very good example. The comparison of both numbers demonstrates the Democratic credentials of the black vote more than it points to underlying racial motivations (in the case of the Obama turnout).
However throughout the campaign a certain white constituency that backed McCain showed through their words and actions a level of racism you couldn't miss. Right wing blogs - and not all of them 'far' right - had comment threads that were rife with racist humor, innuendo and on occasion in-your-face racist hate. By contrast pro-Obama blogs didn't reflect racist attitudes toward whites and/or racism toward John McCain in particular - or at least very rarely.
There is a white 'redneck' attitude in some communities in the southern States that is so racist, it is virtually pathological. There are whites who are so entrenched in their cultural backwaters ... so myopic when it comes to the world outside their xenophobic bailiwicks ... the idea of voting for a black president is a complete anathema.
The one encouraging note as far as the racist issue is concerned was Pennsylvania. Prior to the election CNN had their cameras at a Palin rally in the state, and racist attitudes were hard to miss. One man kept waving a toy monkey at the camera. The monkey was wearing a crown with the name "Obama."
Given the racist accusation by Murtha, I think at least some Penn staters likely went to the polls determined to salvage the reputation of their state, and hats off to them.
The victory of Barack Obama demonstrates the greatness of the American spirit - its transformational power and ability to rise to great heights in order to reach for hope and a better future. For many around the world this has reaffirmed their belief in the power of the great American experiment. Racism is a real problem, but what the election of Barack Obama says is that America is bigger than that.
Posted by: mac at Nov 5, 2008 11:41:05 PM
To a certain extent this election was a referendum on the influence of religion over politics the past 8 years: a resounding repudiation of Bush and co's "God had my back" doctrine.
Meter: You are a either a cartoon or escaped mental patient.
Posted by: Phil at Nov 5, 2008 11:43:36 PM
In the SOUTHERN states? I grew up in a few "southern" states, and I never encounted the type of overt, virulent, openly and frequently violent racism there in over 20 years that I encountered almost immediately in both California and New Mexico. Blacks on whites, blacks on Asians, blacks on Hispanics, whites on blacks, whites on Hispanics, Hispanics on whites, Hispanics on blacks ...
Posted by: MM at Nov 6, 2008 12:17:11 AM
Bob,
I feel the way you do. However, the media are twits. Not new. People vote expressively and irrationally. Not new. The government is collectivist. Not new.
Nothing to see here, really.
What I get upset about is news stories on the 'Frisco East (Asheville) news channel where everyone has their panties in a knot over some guns stolen out of the police impound. It's almost treated like an ebola outbreak.
Anecdotally, I was having a fun discussion (well, I was having fun) with some co-workers (they were getting pissed). I made some comment about gays in San Francisco. They proceeded to lecture me on how you can't tell if someone is gay. Generalization just doesn't work, ya see. Then they started talking about how the South is racist. One guy said that in one small town everyone was violently racist. Every single person.
We stopped caring about race a while back. Finally, the pundits catch up.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 6, 2008 5:39:02 AM
This election was a matter of the segments of the population with the greatest propensity for dependency demanding to be treated as dependents. I suspect that their demands will be met. I doubt that they will find satisfaction in their "success".
Posted by: Randy at Nov 6, 2008 5:47:37 AM
After reading more of the comments, I thought it would finally be put to rest, but it seems we can elect a black president, putting the final stamp on the fact that this is probably the best country on the planet for black people, and it still isn't going to be good enough.
The bottom line for this election was that moderates were ticked off at the mismanagement of the government they perceived in the Republican administration. To me, this explains the slight shift of the highest earners away from the Republicans. It's as simple as the elites wanting to keep the boat from rocking. McCain wasn't Bush, and probably would have restored rigor to the government, but the more desperate he got for votes, the more negative he got, the more the claim that he is part of the Republican establishment stuck. He was between a rock and a hard place. Then came the economy. Obama only had to play field position with a lead and not fumble, which he is the best at, just keep Biden locked away where they've been keeping Cheney.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 6, 2008 6:14:47 AM
As for DeLong using Gelman's one graph to assume that old folks are racist because young folks aren't so much, how 'bout maybe the old folks just voted FOR the old guy and not against the young black guy?
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 6, 2008 6:31:47 AM
To a certain extent this election was a referendum on the influence of religion over politics the past 8 years: a resounding repudiation of Bush and co's "God had my back" doctrine.
Oh hell yes! That's why they were watching election returns in churches.... and crying and singing Hallelujah to beat the band when Obama was announced as the winner.
Phil: You're a tool. Or naive. Or both.
Posted by: at Nov 6, 2008 7:50:32 AM
My apologies to Phil:
Meter, even though you are occasionally funny: You're a tool. Or naive. Or both. (See above.)
Posted by: at Nov 6, 2008 7:53:36 AM
So, the accepted rationale for Blacks to be excited for an Obama win is that since he is black, he will be able to identify better with their challenges. Okay.
But then, why wouldn't this same rationale work just as well for old white folk?
To use Tyler's lingo, doesn't an increase in status for a black constituency have to come at the expense of the white constituency? Assuming status is a zero-sum game, it's got to come from somewhere.
So, it can be racial for both sides while not being racist.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 6, 2008 8:04:09 AM
