Breakdown of the New Hampshire voting for Clinton vs Obama v. oh boy...

[Ruiner]

Basically, if you are somewhat successful and educated, you voted for Obama. If you were poor and/or didn't have a college degree, you voted for Hillary according to the stats. Geeeeeeeeeeeee, who would have thought?

How Clinton Won

Hillary Clinton won last night by putting together the voting coalition that has held Democratic frontrunners in good stead for 75 years. Take a look at these numbers - all of which come from CNN's cross-tabulated exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM). What you'll see is that Hillary Clinton won many elements of the traditional FDR coalition.
-Self-identified Democrats made up 54% of the electorate. She won them, 45% to 34%.
-She won voters without a college degree, 43% to 35%.
-She won voters with incomes less than $50,000, 47% to 32%.
-She won voters over the age of 65, 48% to 32%. She also won voters in their 40s (44% to 33%) and their 50s (39% to 30%).
-She won Catholics, 44% to 27%.
-She won urban voters, 43% to 35%. She won suburban voters, 42% to 31%.
-She won voters from union families, 40% to 31%.
-She won voters who said they have been "falling behind" economically, 43% to 33%.
-She won long-time voters, 38% to 33%.
Obama, on the other hand, had a very different electorate - one that has a bit in common with the insurgent candidacies of Gary Hart and Bill Bradley (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/primaries/NH/poll.dem.html).
-He won Independents, 41% to 31%.
-He won voters with at least a college degree, 39% to 34%.
-He won voters who make more than $50,000, 40% to 35%.
-He won college age voters, 60% to 22%. He split voters in their late 20s, 35% to 37%. He won voters in their 30s, 43% to 36%.
-He split Protestant voters, 36% to 36%.
-He won rural voters, 39% to 34%.
-He split voters from non-union households, 39% to 38%.
-He won voters who said they were "getting ahead" economically, 48% to 31%.
-He won first time voters, 47% to 37%.
An additional ingredient to Clinton's success was a victory among female voters, 46% to 34%. Obama won male voters, 40% to 29%. But female voters outvoted male voters, 57% to 43%.

[Leisa]

I just pray that she isnt the next president.. ugghh

[DirtyMechanic]

I just pray that she isnt the next president.. ugghhamen

[Kelly]

Yeah, but I'm not for Obama either. :no:

[Jecht]

I'd personally rather have Obama elected president than Clinton. Obama supports several things I agree with.

The U.S. Pirate Party supports Obama since they don't personally have a candidate running. :lmao:

[tony]

Apparently breaking down in the media gets you everywhere you want to be. If a percentage of those women voted out of pity for her staged breakdown I would be highly dissapointed. This is a good reason the the popular vote should not decide the presidency.

[Jecht]

Apparently breaking down in the media gets you everywhere you want to be. If a percentage of those women voted out of pity for her staged breakdown I would be highly dissapointed. This is a good reason the the popular vote should not decide the presidency.

Sadly, there will always be a significant amount of votes that are determined by factors such as that or the fact that Clinton is female/Obama is black. :(

[Alan®]

I personally don't want either of them to be president because they basically support plans to redistribute the wealth of america when we operate under a free market system.

[Hulud]

atleast obama will tax the rich unlike bush

[JConner]

atleast obama will tax the rich unlike bush

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME????? Why should the rich be taxed more than anyone else? Because they worked hard to become successful? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HIRED BY A POOR PERSON?????

WOW, people amaze me

[JConner]

Ruiner, you are the man for this post! If i can give you rep's i will but I have offended people on this forum so my e-penis isnt very big.

Hillary knows exactly what she is doing, there are more poor people in this country than rich. Those poor people think that the government should take care of them since they do not have the work ethic/intelligence to support themselves.

I got in a heated argument with a best friend of mine, who makes little money, just last night over this. He thinks that the government should pay his medical bills because he cannot afford it. I told him if he would get rid of his cell phone and quit smoking a pack a day he could "AFFORD" his own health insurance.

[Ruiner]

Ruiner, you are the man for this post! If i can give you rep's i will but I have offended people on this forum so my e-penis isnt very big.

Hillary knows exactly what she is doing, there are more poor people in this country than rich. Those poor people think that the government should take care of them since they do not have the work ethic/intelligence to support themselves.

I got in a heated argument with a best friend of mine, who makes little money, just last night over this. He thinks that the government should pay his medical bills because he cannot afford it. I told him if he would get rid of his cell phone and quit smoking a pack a day he could "AFFORD" his own health insurance.

The bolded is SO dead on. What's sad is that *most* poor people aren't educated enough to understand what happens in the grand scheme of things when you give the government THAT much power (to where they take care of you and everyone else).

Nothing good will come of it...just look at communism. They aren't even educated enough to realize that socialism is basically a form of communism...class equality; take from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone is equal.

[JConner]

The bolded is SO dead on. What's sad is that *most* poor people aren't educated enough to understand what happens in the grand scheme of things when you give the government THAT much power (to where they take care of you and everyone else).

Nothing good will come of it...just look at communism. They aren't even educated enough to realize that socialism is basically a form of communism...class equality; take from the rich and give to the poor so that everyone is equal.


AMEN!

Anyone on welfare should not be allowed to vote. Neither should the people that think we have a RIGHT to vote (shows their ignorance of the constitution). No one has a RIGHT to vote....we are ALLOWED to vote.

[Crazy Asian]

Why cant we have presidents like back then?

[tightflks]

i was wondering, does it really matter that clinton won NH? the democratic party splits delegates up by percentage, they both won 8 delegates i believe, so does the fact she won by a few more percentage points matter?

[The Yousef]

Yeah, but I'm not for Obama either. :no:

I am.

[Jimmy B]

wow.. good read, i jsut hope NEITHER of them are elected..

[Hulud]

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME????? Why should the rich be taxed more than anyone else? Because they worked hard to become successful? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HIRED BY A POOR PERSON?????

WOW, people amaze me
you are an idiot, do some research before making stupid comments.

most of bush's tax cuts have benefited only the rich. i am saying that the rich should be taxed the same as everyone else :goodjob:

[Kaiser]

Sadly, there will always be a significant amount of votes that are determined by factors such as that or the fact that Clinton is female/Obama is black. :(

And this is exactly why the founding fathers were smarter than people given them credit for in so many ways. The electoral college is not bound to vote with the popular vote. In fact, for a long time there was no popular vote for president (Or Senators, which we should go back to) at all. The only thing the popular vote decides is which party sends delegates to the Electoral College. If we removed the popular vote from presidential elections we'd probably have better presidents in office.

To the other points in this thread: Yes, we are allowed to vote, if you think poor people should not vote then contact your state legislature and ask them to impose an income floor on voting registration. They will proceed to laugh at you, because the largest percentage of voters are those who are in their retirement years and have a small fixed income. These people are not "poor", despite their low income, they make up one of the highest net-worth age-groups in the united states. Why? They own their home, their car, have no credit card debt, go on cruises every summer, have a pension, social security, a retirement fund, a nest egg, a grandkids college fund, and still have spending cash to spoil themselves more often than not. However, they are "poor" people who are voting, many of whom don't have college degrees and worked in labor jobs.

As for the "People on Welfare should not be allowed to vote," then you have to define what exactly you mean by it. Should they not be allowed to vote in local elections that still have a bearing on their life? Or just federal elections to prevent them from voting themselves a "raise"? Either way, it's been repeatedly proven that people who are too lazy or ignorant to realize that welfare is supposed to be temporary aid and not the government paying you to sit on your ass and do nothing for months aren't terribly likely to vote anyways. Don't forget that huge welfare reforms were enacted not that long ago, and by a president that few people expected it from.

I feel there doesn't need to be any kind of voter litmus test, there needs to be better methods for informing voters of the issues at hand, more voter involvement through non-binding referendums over key issues and an explanation to the people of america that they don't elect the President, and shouldn't be allowed to either. The biggest thing we need to stop right now is this idea of "pork-barrel" or "vote-buy" spending in congress. We also need to teach the voters that paying lower taxes means allowing the government to NOT perform some services. We should take a few steps closer to the enumerated powers, and let states go back to running the show. Federal government has grown out of proportion with it's constitutional framework.


P.S.: Fairtax (IE, removal of the easily cheatable income tax system replaced with a nationwide sales tax system that would be revenue neutral for the government) would cause rich people to be taxed HIGHER than poor people (Poor people typically buy used goods, which would not be taxed, and also lower cost goods, which would have less tax cost because of the lower overall cost, add in the sales-tax prebate given to all families equivalent to the poverty line income in tax and you have a system that removes tax burden from the lowest income families entirely, plus Rich people usually buy new products, and the new products they buy are often expensive, and thus have a higher, though proportional, tax load.) ANY form of Income tax will be ineffective at taxing the absolute richest people in America, because the vast majority of them don't "make" any money at all. They recieve an income usually without tax through trusts, funds, and other seperate means that evade tax collection through the thousands of legal loopholes left in the system. A sales tax system becomes significantly harder to "evade" when every product you're buying has the tax imbedded in it.

[1000cckiller]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/06/mucci_narrowweb__300x335,2.jpg

[81911SC]

Hilary don't like guns.

[Hulud]

Hilary don't like c0ck.

fixed :goodjob: