Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?

Who elected Obama?

By Mark Alexander

Last week we answered the question “Who is Barack Obama” by posing questions that Obama did not answer during the presidential campaign. This week, we take a look at who voted for him.

Police mugshots of Obama constituents

On 20 January, Barack Hussein Obama will be inaugurated as the next president of our United States, according to our Constitution. However, his largest constituencies tend to view this event as either the coronation of the “royal one” or the ordination of the “holy one.”

Before we further define those constituencies, here, for the record, is a recap of the survey data concerning the presidential election.

Some 136.6 million Americans voted — a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO’s support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO’s largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves “lonely or isolated,” 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in “a major way,” and 61 percent of those who claim they are “stressed out” supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats’ strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama’s election. Indeed, the Left’s political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi — “Divide-n-Conquer.” No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama’s largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of “disenfranchised victims,” those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty. They have fully bought into the “Politics of Disparity” or “class warfare.”

However, it is Obama’s small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the “king makers,” those who have funded and charted Obama’s course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of “easy money,” which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the “service sector” is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama’s academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as “Useful Idiots” for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a “Living Constitution”.

Among Obama’s Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama’s cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama’s supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive. Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview — for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, “Because I feel…”

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, “Because I think…”

So, the once great Democrat Party has now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday’s inaugural “historic.” Well, it’s not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration — historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect’s genetic heritage is African — and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first “black president.”

It is no small irony that the day before Obama’s inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should “ask what your country can do for you.”

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will take an oath “to support and defend the Constitution”, but he has no history of honoring our Constitution, even pledging that his Supreme Court nominees should comport with Leftist ideology and “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.”

Some have suggested that since the election is over and Obama is the victor, we should accord him the honor due his office. But if he does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office?

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

source

Tags: , , , , , , ,

29 Responses to “Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?”

  1. dsgawrsh Says:

    Seeing those mugshots made me laugh out loud! Great link, thanks Patrick.

  2. What Do You Know About Web 2.0 Web Chat? | IRC News Says:

    [...] Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..? « Conservative … [...]

  3. Patrick Sperry Says:

    So, ya liked that did ya? :D

  4. emrush Says:

    This is the biggest load of jibberish I’ve read in a long time. As one of the “academic elite” who supported Obama, I can tell you that I have a good deal more respect for our constitution than the people who put Bush in office in 2000, or the Bush advisers who took away some of my constitutional liberties. I do not advocate any sort of “collectivism” and learned in school the economic fallacies of communism. If you can explain why you automatically disregard the opinions of those who have taken the effort to become highly educated- why being educated is a a dangerous activity in your view- please do so.

  5. Patrick Sperry Says:

    You are an “Academic Elite?” Where did you get your degree from? A cereal box?

    English 110: Writing a Research paper. ALWAYS use citation, and check said citations.

    Professor emrush, ah hem, please check the source, and refrain from attacking the messenger rather than the message.

    Now, as to “If you can explain why you automatically disregard the opinions of those who have taken the effort to become highly educated- why being educated is a a dangerous activity in your view- please do so.” I have from time to time deleted extremely foul mouthed postings on this blog, as well as disguised spam. However, please put your evidence forward where I have ever deleted any commentary. Period! Not just things that I happen to disagree with, but anything!

    Bring it on brain guy… I don’t run from fights.

  6. David Says:

    Academic elite…. Do not make me laugh.

    I’m a teacher. Trust me with few exceptions most teachers do not teach, and nothing makes them elite other then their own over blown ego.

    Education is a joke. Being educated does not mean that your are smart or capable it means you jumped through the hoops put in place by the left.

    AS for those civil liberties bush took from you… please by all means name them… that is right you can not. Which is why BO is in no rush to return these civil liberties you claim to have lost.

    The best part is all of these people blindly following obama. What has he done? SInce being in office he has had more then a few of his nominations for office blow up in his face. HIs democrat friends have forced through a bill with massive amounts of pork spending. And they forced it through with no one knowing the final version, very responsible indeed. HE hired a known lobbysit for deputy defense secratary. All this in just the first month. NO pork… check NO lobbyists… check. Transparency… check…

    150 million to plant grass…. you idiots.

    He has done this openly with no scrutiny from his brain dead followers.

    I vote libertarian. Neither mccain or obama kerry or bush.

    Highly educated. Yeah whose education. It is a subjective term. Think about it. You are all a bunch of mindless tools. Especially the self proclaimed academic elite. THe only thing that seperates the academic elite from the idiot masses is an overrated union card called a diploma.

    Also idealism and reality are two very distinct things. Idealism is in fact dangerous as the idiot masses try to substitute it for reality.

  7. Patrick Sperry Says:

    *chuckles*
    David, many years ago at UCSD a Professor Emeritus once said to me;

    “Young man, never, mistake education for intelligence.”

    I have made it a point to never forget what he said.

  8. Jim Says:

    To paraphrase; “You campaign with the electorate you have – not the electorate you might like…”

    Your cute collage demonstrates that you are doomed to the fringes of American politics for the foreseeable future. So, snipe your way into obscurity. No one will miss you.

  9. Jim Says:

    P.S. The Barna Research Group? Now there’s an objective source. lol

  10. Patrick Sperry Says:

    And Jim also attacks the messenger rather than the message…

  11. Jim Says:

    That’s lame. What’s next? A study on tobacco safety by Phillip-Morris?

  12. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Please… Opposing discourse is actually welcome here. Can you possibly expand on lame? Next? A study by you Jim, on ad hominem?

  13. Jim Says:

    Try to stay on task. You could start with by explaining the point of your ad hominen attack on blacks.

    For that matter, your entire blog is an ad hominen attack on the majority of the electorate that voted for Obama.

  14. Jim Says:

    Quiz: What letter is missing from the subtitle of your blog?

  15. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Please point that out Jim. If it is from the source noted and linked, then perhaps you should have called in to Gunny’s show way back when that was first posted on his web page.

    According to Websters and the New American Dictionary there are no missing letters in my subtitle.

    As for my entire blog being some sort of attack on blacks? You sir have not done your homework. Roughly thirty percent of this blog deals with conservation, and that thirty percent accounts for more than fifty percent of registered hits. Not to mention my postings related to the courage and honor displayed through extreme sacrifice by the troops of this nation. That works out to near eleven percent of postings and close to twenty percent of the hits registered. The math just plain does not work out. Not to mention that I generally make it a point not to post things that are negative and broadly based about any race, not just blacks. I have, and will continue to post about individuals that I believe to be a threat to this nation irrespective of race, gender, or nationality.

  16. Jim Says:

    I always thought objectivist was spelled with two i’s. Silly me.

    I was responding to “Obama voting demographics, where do you fit..?” I didn’t think I needed to explain that to you.

    The “message” was delivered by almost 67 million citizens and you attempt to denigrate the intelligence, motivations and ideals of each and every “messenger”. Talk about ad hominem! The hilarious pseudo-academic analysis to which you link is just the sort of twisted psycho-babble that I would imagine an Objectivist would disdain.

    It’s too bad you didn’t the pictures of some of the white criminals in suits and flag pins who are largely responsible for the current economic crisis. As it stands, your little collage is pure racism.

  17. Jim Says:

    Correction: Insert “post” after the word “didn’t” in the final paragraph.

  18. Patrick Sperry Says:

    I’ve actually seen it spelled both ways from time to time.
    “It’s too bad you didn’t the pictures of some of the white criminals in suits and flag pins who are largely responsible for the current economic crisis. As it stands, your little collage is pure racism.”
    Gunny cited known associates of the obama. Care to dispute that? Some sure don’t look black to me from those pictures…

    The current economic crises is the result of several things, including the entire Congress forcing loan availability to people that had no business getting loans. There’s plenty of room to share blame for all that on all sides. BTW, I was no great fan of George Bush and regularly blasted him here as well as on other blogs and forums.

  19. Jim Says:

    Well, there’s plenty of “blame” to go around for the election of Barack Obama, and most of the “perps” have never had a mug shot taken. The criminals in suits were an essential part of the meltdown, just as young people and blacks were essential to Obama’s election. How about some equal time?

    I don’t give a rat’s behind what “Gunny” decided to post. If he went looking for black mug shots, that’s just what I would expect him to find. How does that make them representative of Obama supporters? To call them “associates” of Obama doesn’t bode well for you as an indicator of intellectual honesty, either.

    I didn’t even mention Bush’s name. Don’t for a moment imagine that the conservatives can now wash their hands of their darling boy after slavishly taking their marching orders from him for the past eight years.

  20. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Equal time? This is a relatively old post Jim, and I am well aware of the role that younger people played in the election. Young people from all races, not just blacks played a large part of the debacle of the Republicans. Good job!

    If you don’t care for what I re posted from Gunny Bob’s page looking for comments too bad. It appears to have worked, at least with you.

    George Bush was no conservative. At best he was what has been termed a neo-conservative. Looking at his many positions that were in direct conflict with conservative principles should be more than obvious. I used him as an example but I could just as easily have used John McCain and a slough of others. I regularly blasted them both here, and others as well. Usually Bush Bots, as they are known, are blasting me for hammering Bush et al so this is kind of refreshing in a way.

    Have a good day.

  21. Jim Says:

    “Equal time? This is a relatively old post Jim, and I am well aware of the role that younger people played in the election. Young people from all races, not just blacks played a large part of the debacle of the Republicans. Good job!

    If you don’t care for what I re posted from Gunny Bob’s page looking for comments too bad. It appears to have worked, at least with you.”

    I haven’t a clue what you’re trying say. That means it’s time for me to on.

  22. Patrick Sperry Says:

    See ya!

  23. Sara A Says:

    Morons!!

  24. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Oh come now Sara, you can do better than that!

  25. Dave Smith Says:

    I always like to see these demographics, every time some wack-job from the right acts like an idiot it is somehow indicative of the dangerous thinking on the right, but when a lefty goes off and shoots up a gym and kills some women, he’s just a nutter. Hey, I’ll take those occasional wack-jobs on the right, if you lefties take almost the entire population of say Lancaster State Prison in California, where pretty much ALL of the inmates are liberal democrats, having grown up with single moms and “benefiting” from that fine welfare program we have here.

  26. Obama gets Nobel Peace prize - Page 3 Says:

    [...] because he was the smarter choice. So, you're saying these people were smart enough to choose? http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2…re-do-you-fit/ Don't tell me I'm being stereotypical, but when I look at those thumbnails, they don't exactly fit [...]

  27. Lupita Says:

    In my opinion, your article is a collection of arrogance, stereotypes, lies, unsubstantiated assumptions and sheer idiocy. But when your so called facts come from the Barna Group, well that’s a major clue right there.

    From reading your post the following points stand out:

    1. For some reason which you do not specify, you have a deep seated hatred of Obama.

    2. You are angry enough at those who voted for Obama to portray them as inferior to yourself in terms of ethics, character and educational status. Oh, and most of them are not even white! Perhaps that’s the unspecified reason you hate the president?

    3. Elections are meaningless to you. You clearly stated in your post that Obama didn’t deserve to be treated with the respect that his office accords him. Had you made this statement after Obama had in some way disgraced his office, it might have some validity, but you said this before Obama was even inaugurated.

    To summarize, you are mad as hell that Obama, a half breed, got elected and you refuse to recognize him as your president. Furthermore, he wouldn’t have been elected if it were not for all of the young uneducated people of color who voted for him, in hopes that he would give them everything for free.

    Question: Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions? Why not just come out and say it, instead of trying to give your prejudiced views legitimacy by using data from a fundamentalist polling company? And if your are going to use the Barna Group as a source, don’t you think you should disclose that they are not secular?

    No, probably not. I think you’re a sick person myself. Sorry I found your blog.

  28. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Well Lupita? I have to ask a question. Why did you take so long to come along with your accusations? This post is really quite old. Did you think that I wouldn’t catch it? Let’s address your issues one at a time down the line;

    “1. For some reason which you do not specify, you have a deep seated hatred of Obama.”

    Try taking a look at his background Lupita. The people that he hung around with directly supported those that were killing my friends back in the day. I’m kinda like that in that I don’t submit to political correctness and accept unrepentant killers and terrorists.

    “2. You are angry enough at those who voted for Obama to portray them as inferior to yourself in terms of ethics, character and educational status. Oh, and most of them are not even white! Perhaps that’s the unspecified reason you hate the president?”

    Please point out where I said anything like that. However in terms of ethics perhaps you can take me to task for not thinking that ACORNS unadulterated voter fraud was unethical along with the strong arm tactics employed by the New Black Panthers and SEIU. But, well? That does indeed lead to character now doesn’t it? Most of those people cited, if not all, are well educated and have degrees. That accusation is blatantly false. So what if most are not white? That’s like saying that since most critics of the SPLC are not black that they do not deserve any criticism. I don’t like obama because of his background and beliefs not because of his race. Get over it, and try some real accusations rather than coming here and pulling the race card. You are aware are you not that doing that is a signal that you really don’t have anything of substance to argue about.

    “3. Elections are meaningless to you. You clearly stated in your post that Obama didn’t deserve to be treated with the respect that his office accords him. Had you made this statement after Obama had in some way disgraced his office, it might have some validity, but you said this before Obama was even inaugurated.”

    Lupita? Are you smoking crack? This story was posted after the election was a done thing! Elections are indeed important. I oppose the impostor in chief based upon his piss poor past as an AMERICAN. Now, after basically a year in office? I oppose him even more based upon what he has done while actually in office.

    I have answered your “summary” directly during the itemization process.

    Now, Lupita, please explain to my regular readers why your post was inside editorial blocks in raw form? Are you a troll that can’t think for yourself so you go to websites that tout a specific set of talking points and copy and paste them over?

    I think that you are a sick person with a weak mind. So Lupita, take a little advice. Never get into a battle of wits with anyone, because you are an unarmed opponent.

    Ta ta for now.

  29. Friend, foe, or strong leader? | Connected Principals Says:

    [...] of the generations that exist living in a world of status updates and constant awareness: 66% of voters electing him were under the age of 30, a HUGE factor in his [...]

Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers

%d bloggers like this: