Posted on 11/07/2012 6:52:07 AM PST by KeyLargo
NEW YORK (WLS) - A coalition of women and nonwhites helped re-elect President Obama to a second term Tuesday night.
Obama has always performed better with women than with men, and with nonwhites than with whites. But on Tuesday night, those numbers were so much in his favor that they built Obama a powerful firewall against a dropoff in support from white men and independent voters.
Nonwhite voters turned out to vote in higher numbers than ever. They made up 21 percent of all voters. In 1996, they were just 10 percent.
That new bloc was evident in Florida, the perennial swing state that was thought to be in Mitt Romney's corner. Hispanics came out in force for Obama, in greater numbers than in 2008 when Obama beat John McCain among Hispanics in Florida 57 to 42 percent. On Tuesday, he beat Romney among Hispanics 60 to 39 percent.
And as the country tinted blue for the second presidential election in a row, it also got a little less white.
(Excerpt) Read more at wlsam.com ...
Wise words and said the way it should be
Dangerous sign -- when the men leave. Once a society becomes overfeminized, decadence is on the way.
At the voting booth most of what I saw were women, minorities, & male hipster types. This is the face of Obama.
It appears to be a longer version of the same story.
The Democrats ran a campaign based on ladyparts and the American People decided to buy it, particularly American women, and like many women who choose to stay in a relationship that they KNOW is harmful the result is going to be just as catastrophic.
I just told my boss that on Tuesday and said my wife would gladly give up her vote to take it away from the mass of liberal women out there. He thinks I'm nuts.
Why Mitt Romney Lost
Newsmax ^ | Nov 7, 2012 | Christopher Ruddy
Posted on Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:53:31 AM by KeyLargo
Newsmax Why Mitt Romney Lost Wednesday, November 7, 2012 02:24 PM
By: Christopher Ruddy Newsmax
Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: It was the worst of times and the worst of times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956927/posts
So, you’re telling me that the founders intended them to vote, but they just never got around to letting them do so?
Then you don’t think freedom is a natural right? Or do you propose that someone with no say in their governance is free?
Does the government give Americans the right to vote or does it recognize their natural right to self determination?
If you have a point, quit dancing with “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” style “questions”. You full well know that we are talking about VOTING here; I write plainly enough. Go read your Constitution, and note the “inalienable rights”. You won’t see “voting” listed.
Like it, don’t like it, I don’t make the freakin’ laws. You are allowed, or not allowed, to vote per statutes. Period.
Maybe you need to read the Constitution. It is the Declaration of Independence that speaks of inalienable rights, and it does NOT presume to include them all.
Do you think the inalienable natural right to liberty includes having no say in your governance?
No doubt. It seems the vast majority of our fellow Americans, even the self-proclaimed conservatives, wonder if men with our views are domineering, wife-beating tyrants.
I've been compared to the Taliban at least a couple times when I've posted similar stuff here before.
When Biblical principles routinely elicit such incredulity, mockery and disdain, it says a lot about how this nation has "progressed."
Well gee golly, tell ya what, pal. Don’t register to vote, then go try to. See what happens.
Now if you’re a Democrat you may get away with it.....
So registering to vote gives the right to vote?
I realize you are having problems reconciling your views with natural law, and that you don’t know much about what the Constitution actually says - but this is just ridiculous.
In NJ women were allowed to vote from the earliest time. Then around 1810 some man who kept losing because he thought women were voting against him managed to drum up support that they would lose the franchise by 1820.
It’s true.
Despite the standard history in school which teaches that “women got the right to vote in 1920” even while they teach us that somehow, “the 1st place to allow women to vote was Wyoming” (false) c.1870.
So yes, the very founding generation was allowing non-property-owning-white-males to vote. It just wasn’t universal.
“Look at the stats, deal with the facts. Women and minorities elected this Muslim Socialist not once, but twice. Women did it out of jaw-dropping ignorance and stupidity (must I recap the Democrat positions on “the war on women”, or did you hear enough of it during the campaign to understand what b.s. it was?). ...”
“Women.......God knows I love ‘em, and I know MANY staunchly patriotic, Conservative women....including many I’d vote FOR in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by at least another here, a woman herself, women too often act on emotion vs. logic.”
*sigh* amazing.
Look at the truth. Women voting 50/50 average for the different candidates doesn’t point to them “always being Dem (i.e., “emotional” and “illogical”).
Sorry, but we’re not nearly as monolithic and predictable as blacks - nobody is. It’s not a corollary that women are just liberal (but it IS a given here in MD - except for me and mine). In fact, I’d wager the bigger problem for that “women” demographic generally is the “black” interlaced in there.
Look at this and you’ll see your men aren’t doing so well, either.
Thanks neverdem.
So let your five year old, or autistic kid, go vote. That’s your logic. God-given right, no laws.
That’s not “ridiculous”, that’s idiocy. By the way, drop the holier than thou crap.
We don’t give them guns either. Yet people DO have the natural right to keep and bear arms and it is NOT from the government.
Ok, I’ll take you at your word, but you are still talking about one state, so I dont think that disputes the claim that the founders didn’t intend for it. I’d say thats more an exception to the rule. But, by design or coincidence, it seems like there are more and more people out of those groups that largely were not voting in elections involving Washington, Jefferson and Madison that are voting now, and propelling us toward the nanny state.
I’m not really in favor of going back to only allowing white males to vote, but I do think there are far, far too many people voting, and at the very least those that do should be required to have some skin in the game...like having paid taxes at least once in your lifetime. Of course, obvious exceptions would apply (lifelong disabled comes to mind). But it certainly shouldn’t be that once you get to 18 and have a pulse you get a say writing checks out of the national checkbook. The problem is, now that we’ve given them the right, and they’ve figured out how to milk the taxpayer, how do we turn it around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.