Thursday, August 12, 2010

Learning from the 2008 Vote

I have been reading the exit poll data. If things are going to turn around this November we really need to understand what happened in 2008. Now I will admit that McCain was not a formidable opponent to Obama. Some would even suggest that he all but handed the election to Obama. Even with poor choices there is still things that can be learned from the data.

First let us look at the age demographics.
age 18-29 make up 21.8% of the population with 16% voting and voted 56% Obama
age 58 and older make up 24.7% of the population with 29.3% voting and voted 37% Obama

The age data shows why these two groups are so actively pursued during elections. Both groups fail to vote to the capacity of their members. The youth are both fickle and hard to draw to the polls. The older demand focus on Social Security and Medicare as they look for stability.

Side Note: Obamacare will ration or reduce care to the older group thereby reducing this group of dominately Republican voters.

Workforce Demographics 15.4% of workforce is union
Organized (union) Labor 67% voted Obama
Unorganized (non-union) Labor 51% voted Obama
Union Members over 65 voted Obama 72%
Non Union over 65 voted Obama 46%

Teachers make up 2.7% of workforce
87% of teachers are Union 80% voted Obama

Government Employment (doesn't include education) Makes up 17% of workforce and vote 70% Democrat
Federal Civilian 15.02% percentage of total workforce 2.55%
Post office 5.21% percentage of total workforce 0.89%
Military Enlisted 9.93% percentage of total workforce 1.69%
Military Officers 1.95% percentage of total workforce 0.33%
State Government 20.52% percentage of total workforce 3.49%
Local Government 47.36% percentage of total workforce 8.05%

Side Note: People who have Post-Graduate degrees were 16% less likely to vote Democrat.

Voter Turnout - Sad but true.
Presidential voting years average 55.2% since 1960
Non-Presidential voting years average 40% since 1960
60% of eligible voters are actually registered to vote.
In 2006 37.1% turned out.
In 2008 56.8% turned out.

Our founders fought desperately to give us the right to vote. Throughout our history we have advanced the right to vote to more of our citizens and yet fewer and fewer are actually exercising this much sought and fought for right.

Given our voting turnout it would only take a highly motivated group to garner 18.5% of the voting block to win an election in a non-presidential year. Local and state issues can suffer a greater fate as the majority fails to take advantage of the election. I hear people complaining about how their state/city/town/country got into the horrible condition it is currently in and I look on voting records like this. It is high time those who were eligible to vote showed up. A great many places have made it even easier with mail in ballots and yet so many don't vote.

Look at the data above. All it takes for another tax hike is for Government Employees, Teachers and union workers to show up at the polls and they take 35%. If we add the brainwashed 18-29s we have 57% of the voting population setting the policy. These are the groups most likely to be motivated to the polls. Looking over their Democrat leaning percentages that would be 36.6% of eligible voters if they turned out in force to vote. The youth and their lack of showing up could cut 10% but even 26.6% is enough to take most mid-term elections.

Overall the need to get eligible voters to the polls has never been greater. Conservative America needs to show up and do their duty as citizens. Notice I didn't include the vast public who are on some government program that may be persuaded to join the other side. Most of this group are too lazy to show up, so the percentage is small but formidable indeed.

Switching Gears -------
When the constitution was being argued the south wanted to count all the black men as part of there representation in order to gain more seats in government. The north realizing that these slaves would take their rightful vote and therefore promote slavery instead of diminish it. The north argued that slaves should not be counted because they had no say in the policies of state. A compromise was achieved to better balance the rolls by counting black slaves as only 60% of a white voter. This was not to say that a black man was only worth 60% of a white man as some would later argue.

In the rolls of law, if someone has a "dog in the fight" or a interest to gain, they must remove themselves from the legal dispute so it can be settled fairly. We are currently aware of this fact as we look to establish a new supreme court justice. Will Kagen be allowed to serve when Obamacare makes its way before the court? The honorable would remove themselves from the proceedings.

I find it awkward at best that congress is allowed to vote for their own raises and benefits when their bias is so blatant to the outcome.

With all that in mind, should voters who may benefit from a election result be removed from the pool? Should they be allowed to vote or should their vote be reduced to say 60% given the obvious bias?

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. - Benjamin Franklin

Labels: , , , ,

14 Comments:

Blogger Joe said...

There is a very large contingent that will vote heavily Democrat in the upcoming election: illegal aliens. Though not citizens, they WILL be allowed to vote, and will vote for those who give them the biggest chunk of assylum.

We must overwhelm them with conservative turn-out.

5:25 AM, August 13, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

It is hard to figure the percentage that may advance with the illegal vote.
We need to get conservatives registered and voting in elections. Standing on the sidelines is no longer an acceptable practice. The election is already heavily weighted in the oppositions favor. I believe many have awakened, but will they act?

5:51 AM, August 13, 2010  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

Interesting..
"With all that in mind, should voters who may benefit from a election result be removed from the pool? Should they be allowed to vote or should their vote be reduced to say 60% given the obvious bias?" How about those that consistantly vote against their best interest, should they get two vote two or three times? Essentially, there are consistant blocks, as you note, although the 75%
liberal Jewish population was not addressed. Almost always, though, it is the
middleman swing vote which is the final decider...

7:34 AM, August 13, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

BB-I -- That never came up in all my research. The groups who need the most encouragement to vote and vote conservative are the young and the old. The middle aged crowd seem to exercise their voting rights most often.
Conversion through knowledge and encouragement to improve our nation through values in what made us successful to begin with is what will save us. We found the source for success. All we need to do is return to it.

8:18 AM, August 13, 2010  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

Another small block the GOP has a difficult time convincing...

6:56 PM, August 16, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

I was surprised the article didn't go into government grants and funding is more likely to come from Democrats as one of the main issues.

I spent a lot of years studying the sciences. The article has a few digs that leave me wondering on its validity. If I was to poll all my science friends I doubt you would get 10% who believe GW is man made.

8:00 PM, August 16, 2010  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

Well Ablur, I'm an old guy,
retired explosives chemist, too old to change my liberal ways. Couple apologies here, first for
getting rather off topic, second for the link. That
article was based on this
study ..where the basic problems of evolution and anthropogenic
gobal warming highlight the
GOP vs science dilemma. Not that the scientist bloc
is any elective factor, but
most tend to resent being termed 'pseudo-scientists' by folks who generally fall into the category of
'Contra principia negantem non est disputandum'. For example, while 10% of your science friends do not adhere to GW, 87% of us do.
I don't doubt your figure, for even among scientists there are idiosycracies:
computer scientists and
many engineers being more conservative than say microbiologists and geneticists. Grants? Perhaps a factor, but more important, I think is the idea of teaching Genesis as biology 101. That is dark ages thinking, I'm afraid. The conservative problem is the dichotomy
of logical economics vs the
redneck meaness endemic with the current party.
(I was an Eisenhower Republican, once) Again,
apologies for wandering from your original topic.

3:22 PM, August 17, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

BB-I I don't mind an occasional diversion. It helps to make life interesting.

The Study seems more like a poll overview. I will have to read and digest.

7:28 PM, August 17, 2010  
Blogger samual135 said...

Voting is the fundamental right of every citizen of the country.
_________________________________
samual135

Jobs in Business

7:59 AM, August 18, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

Sam - Voting is a right for those over 18 years of age. Some would suggest this should be reduced to 17.

BB-I - I have read through the survey they used to collect the data. It directs answers but does not pursue alternatives.

Let me give you some issues that hurts GW.
1. The world has warmed and cooled hundreds of times. Why? Some events were fast and some slow. Why?
2. CO2 is found following the warming trends not proceeding it. Why do we claim it is a precurser and seek to reduce it? If it follows, could it be the solution?
3. Other planets have demonstrated Warming and cooling trends that mimicked the earth. If man is the cause here, who caused theres?
4. A large contingent of scientists have shown a direct correlation to sun spots and warming and cooling cycles. These studies have not had as many contradictions as current GW issues.
5. Why should we assume that warming or cooling is bad? Since the earth has gone through cycles of both and they both had positive and negative results -- Should we attempt to choose?
6. Must we believe that man as small as he is, has the capacity to alter the cycles of the earth.

Perhaps chewing on this is enough for now. There are many issues in the study that need puzzling.

6:54 PM, August 18, 2010  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

Not a climatologist, but I’ll try:
1. The surface temperature of the earth is affected by solar radiation and the atmosphere. While solar radiation can vary, it is a minor part of the equilibrium, thus any
atmospheric changes drive the surface temperature over time..volcanoes, animal/plant ratios (one producing CO2, the other O2), meteorites being major players. Minor trends up and down as you note, frequently occur, I suspect related to albedo (eg ice reflection, ocean conditions, surface circulation patterns, etc. Large forest fires may add a variable, and certainly variation in atmospheric water content is very important.
It is a very complex equilibrium and I suspect other drivers of which I (and perhaps climatology) are unaware. Many of the more substantial temperature anomalies occurred prior to man, or for that matter, life (and some think that these more severe atmospheric conditions were necessary for the peculiar formation of complex organic
chemicals leading to the proteins, nucleic acids etc and subsequent primitive self-
replicating systems which became over eons simple biological cells). Like many complex equilibriums the atmosphere/surface temperature system adjusts rapidly or slowly depending on the many variables.
2. Yep, CO2 goes up as the atmosphere warms: the vapor pressure permits release of more dissolved CO2 from the ocean surfaces. Over the last several hundred thousand
years, the heating-cooling cycle was accompanied by CO2 levels of 180PPM during
cooling and up to 300PPM during warm periods. (it is currently 380PPM)
3. Venus is good example of global warming. Atmospheric water/CO2 at some point began a ‘runaway’ feedback, the rising temperature evaporating more water, which drove the equilibrium until the Venus lakes boiled away, and later even CO2 held in
rock formations was released. Surface temperature there about 752 degrees F. Hard to compare Earth as other planets in our solar system possess their own uniqueness and are in varying stages of atmospheric (or nonatmospheric) evolution. Those planets which most closely resemble earth are in other systems far away and we know little about them.

3:30 PM, August 19, 2010  
Blogger BB-Idaho said...

4. I’m not familiar with sunspots as global temperature drivers (but they can cause
squirrely stuff with electronics sometimes. The climatological computer models I’ve
read about typically take solar aberrations into consideration…of course predicting them is another matter, though I understand they are getting a handle on that as well.
5. We need not assume warming or cooling is bad, but we need consider any affect: for example the US Defense Dept is doing studies related to things like deforestation, crop output, potable water etc. (a concern being mass movements of third world
and even urban peoples, areas of starvation etc) It seems probably that some species would be
affected by warming, such as algae (which generate most of our oxygen), insects and the like. It seems fairly predictable that weather could be affected, changes in
rainfall patterns, more violent storms, blizzards in odd places, floods, droughts, prevailing wind patterns. Good or bad? Dunno…different-you bet.
6. Man is capable of quite a bit. Remember when we set the Cuyahoga River on fire, simply by using it as an industrial waste dump? Couple things operating here…exponential technical progress and exponential population growth. We have done well, species-wise: 3 million humans in 10,000 BC, 1 Billion in 1800 and now two hundred years later, 7 billion. If we were staphylococci, we’d be considered an
infection. :) Back in 1800 when there were a billion of us, the industrial revolution began. Smoke, more people, more smoke. Lot of CO2 in smoke. More urban areas. Huge urban areas. In 1800, the population of New York City was 60,800. Heck, we get that at a college football game these days! The ‘footprint’ of us moderns is huge compared to a Cro-Magnon. We make stuff, we got stuff, we through stuff away. So
yeah, even just common sense suggests that ‘man, small as he is’ has huge capacity, probably enough to imbalance his home planet.
…I’m still skeptical in some areas, so don’t count me as an AlGore alarmist, not ready for those goofy carbon caps quite yet. For the most part, though, I concur with the science, but we need more data and conclusive findings prior to panicking.
PS. 'Man, small as he is'
still limits us to 4500 bytes, hence two interminable posts.sorry

3:41 PM, August 19, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

Now I will have to join you in your skepticism. We understand so little and are betting way to much.

I believe Solar storms and radiation are keys to both cooling and warming cycles. You did a good job of laying out the key issues but I think solar input is lost in most GW science.

Try these:
The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming by Stephen Wilde

UPDATE: Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming

NASA videos: Solar storm sends large flare to Earth

I used to have a video lecture series on this. I wish I could find it again.

8:29 PM, August 19, 2010  
Blogger ablur said...

Still haven't found the lecture series I am looking for but perhaps this will help.

Sunspots and Fish & wildlife Part 1

In part three he goes through some great graphs and charts with evidence for the little ice age.

Part2

Part 3

The bottom line is there are standard cycles that contribute if not cause warming and cooling cycles.

Watch the Video here. Ignore the commentary and look over the information provided by the researcher.

5:18 PM, August 23, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home