« | »

Obama’s Vote Suppression Was Explained In 2012

From the archives of the New York Times:

The Politics of Anything Goes

By THOMAS B. EDSALL | July 23, 2012

Barack Obama first captured the national spotlight with a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston in which he called for an end to the politics of division…

Now, faced with a tough re-election fight, President Obama has, in fundamental respects, adopted the strategy he denounced eight years ago.

He is running a two-track campaign. One track of his re-election drive seeks to boost turnout among core liberal groups; the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat in the most hostile segment of the electorate, whites without college degrees.

AKA white blue collar voters.

Obama is actively courting [his] constituencies: ending the deportation of many young workers who are in the United States illegally; endorsing same-sex marriage; loosening work requirements for welfare recipients; pressing Congress to keep student loan rates low; rejecting the proposal to build the northern portion of the 1,700 mile Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas; and promoting health-care reform that requires insurance plans to fully cover birth control without co-pays or deductibles.

Interestingly, the Obama campaign is not spending the lion’s share of its money on [his constituency]. Instead, Obama’s television ads, at $65.6 million the biggest cost of his re-election bid so far, are overwhelmingly aimed at discrediting Mitt Romney.

The negative ads run by the Obama campaign and its allied “super PAC,” Priorities USA — ads demonizing Romney — target not only whites without college degrees, but in particular white men without degrees, a constituency Obama has no hope of winning

A central goal of the anti-Romney commercials is to cross-pressure these whites. Persuading more than 28 percent of them to vote for Obama is a tough sell, but the Obama campaign can try to make the alternative, voting for Romney, equally unacceptable. Conflicted voters, especially those holding negative views of both candidates, are likely to skip voting altogether…

Romney and the Republican Party must achieve the highest possible turnout level among whites. Republicans, including Romney, have adopted anti-immigration stands that have extinguished the possibility of boosting margins among Hispanics. Asian Americans have become increasingly Democratic, self-identifying in public opinion surveys as Democratic rather than Republican by a 52-32 margin. African Americans remain reliably loyal to the Democratic Party by an 86 to 8 percent margin.

Romney is particularly vulnerable to a campaign designed to suppress turnout because his support is more tepid than Obama’s…

With his margins in this group falling, Obama directly benefits from every white non-college voter who stays home and does not vote for Romney. The importance of vote suppression in a close contest can be seen in the following hypothetical: say there are 1,000 voters evenly split, 500 to 500. Candidate A persuades just one of the voters backing his opponent to fail to go to the polls. Candidate A wins 500 to 499…

Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the book “The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics,” which was published earlier this year.

Here Thomas Edsall announces Obama’s plan to suppress the white blue collar vote, which Obama had no chance of winning. And Mr. Edsall even lays out the Obama campaign’s strategy, which involved putting all of their money and effort into poisoning Romney in the eyes of white conservative (blue collar) workers. Which was the goal of all of their campaign ads. (Such as the ‘cancer ad,’ with Joe Soptik.)

The irony, of course, is all through the campaign Obama and Holder and other Democrats complained about Republican efforts to suppress minority turnout by enacting voter ID laws, etc. But minority turnout hit a record in the elections. Meanwhile, the white conservative vote was suppressed, by probably four million or more voters. Who, if they had voted, would have carried the day for Romney.

So there was a very good reason for the IRS to go after the Tea Party, which would have put out ads, and helped the conservative turnout. It was all part of Obama’s re-election plan.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, May 28th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Obama’s Vote Suppression Was Explained In 2012”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Google this ..

    Turnspeak Propaganda

    all ye need to know

« Front Page | To Top
« | »