The 2012 election is over, with about 2% (2,434,000) of the votes still outstanding. These votes will raise the popular vote to around 124,675,000 but are not expected to change the percentages going to each candidate.
Those on the winning side of American elections like to view the outcome as absolute, that the winning side completely eliminates, erases, the other side – as if it was all like the results of a basketball game, a matter as simple as being able to put the ball through the hoop one time more often before the buzzer goes off. But, despite popular impressions, politics is enormously more complicated than a sports game. You cannot erase the views of many tens of millions of people simply by getting a few more to join your side than the other side. If you made a pie chart of American national elections and gave each side a different color, it would be very difficult to determine which piece of the pie is actually larger; the difference in size is just too tiny. And the larger side in no way erases the other side. The losing side does not suddenly run over and join the winning side. They are still there, constantly right next to the winning side, and their numbers are almost as great as the winning side. They do not simply go away.
So far, according to scientific projections, about 121,750,000 American votes have been officially counted, and 62,608,000 (51.4%) went to President Obama, and 59,142,000 (48.6%) went to Governor Romney. That’s a difference of 3,466,000 votes, or about 2.8%. If the election had been limited to 100 voters, 51 would have voted for Obama, and 49 would have voted for Romney. Who were those voters, and which of them provided the margin of victory? Much discussion has focused on race, but the true answer is easy to determine, for anyone brave enough to admit it. I’ll give you a hint: It’s the same old elephant, sitting right there in the living room, that no one is allowed to mention.
Let’s start with some basics. (Many of the following figures concerning large groups of Americans have been rounded for simplicity. I’ll try to keep the arithmetic as basic as possible.)
US 2012 Population: 314,750,000 Adult (76%): 239,210,000 Votes cast: 124,675,000
Why did only 39% of the US population vote?
Here are a few most recent basic facts about the US population:
1. Total population in 2009: 307,000,000. There were 155,600,000 females resident in the US in 2009 (50.687%). There were 151,400,000 males resident in 2009 (49.313%).
2. As of 1 November 2012 the United States had a total resident population of 314,750,000. Using the 2009 percentages, in 2012 there are about 4,300,000 more females than males. Female (50.687%): 159,537,330 Male (49.313%): 155,212,660
Large groups without voting rights in 2010:
a. An estimated 12,600,000 green card holders resided in the US (about 8.1 million of whom were eligible to naturalize as citizens but have not applied).
b. An officially estimated 11,000,000 illegal immigrants were in the country in 2010.
c. There were about 2,100,000 people in prison in 2010. (93% male – 1,950,000) (7% female – 150,000).
d. About 5,850,000 Americans have served their time for felony convictions but are permanently barred from voting by state voting laws. About 95% of them are male – 5,555,000.
So, Total resident population: 314,750,000
Less 12,600,000 legal residents (may not vote): 302,150,000
Less 11,000,000 illegal aliens (may not vote): 291,150,000
Less 69,876,000 people under 18 years of age (24% may not vote): 221,274,000
Less 2,100,000 incarcerated citizens (may not vote) (93% are male): 219,174,000
Female (50.687%) 112,157,150 Less 150,000 prisoners: 112,007,150 Male (49.313%) 109,116,840 Less 1,950,000 prisoners: 107,166,840
Less 5,850,000 Americans who’ve served their time on felony convictions but are permanently barred from voting by state voting laws. About 95% of them are male.
Female 112,007,150 Less 295,000 felons (may not vote) 111,712,150 Male 107,166,840 Less 5,555,000 felons (may not vote) 101,611,840
Adult US Citizens With Voting Rights in 2012: 213,324,000
Female 111,712,150 Male 101,611,840
So 10,100,311 more women than men were eligible to vote.
But how many of these two groups actually voted in the 2012 election?
Female 61% (x 111,712,150) = 68,144,410 Male 55% (x 101,611,840) = 55,886,510
So, in 2012, a total of 12,257,900 more women than men actually voted.
Total 2012 Voting Population: 124,030,920
Voters: Women: 68,144,410 Men: 55,886,510
Which groups voted for President Obama (based on exit polls)?
Female 55% (x 68,144,410) = 37,479,425 Male 48%* (x 55,886,510) = 26,825,524
So 10,653,900 more women (8.5% of voters) than men voted for Obama. This figure alone, three times the margin of victory and close to the numerical superiority of eligible women over eligible men actually voting, was enough to give Obama the popular vote. Who were these women? (The following percentages refer to ALL voters.)
Single 62% Almost 60% of women have never been married and never had children. Married 44%
Age 18-29 60% Age 30-44 52% Medium US age is 36.8. Age 45-64 49% Age 65+ 44%
Big Cities 69% Mid Cities 58% These two were enough to give Obama the Electoral College vote. Suburbs 50% About 82% of Americans live in cities and suburbs. Small Cities 44%
$0 – 30,000 63% $30-50,000 57% Medium US income is about $51,000. $50,000+ 47%
Black 93% Asian 73% Hispanic 71% White 41% Whites of European ancestry will soon fall below 50% of the population.
Obama was elected by young single urban women earning less than the medium income, who were most likely Hispanic, Asian or Black, and strongly supported by their White sisters. Obama was therefore elected by “Julia“, the primary target of his campaign. Unprincipled political prostitutes, this group will always sell its votes to the highest bidder. These women have chosen to shift dependence from husbands and fathers and instead to marry Big Daddy Government in order to live happily ever after on someone else’s dime. It’s another of their rights of choice. Half of the children born in the US, of course, are born to single women, also exercising their right of choice. American women haven’t mentioned or demonstrated their responsibilities for a half century, but they sure do have a lot of free choices. (See Footnotes #1 and #2.)
Another group of “Julia” voters-for-Obama included privileged young white women wearing expensive clothes at very expensive universities who want the government to pay for their tuition, their birth control pills, their health insurance, etc.. You can also buy many more of this group’s votes by promising to “forgive” their totally irresponsible huge college loans, i.e., transfer the responsibility for meeting voluntary formal financial commitments, made as a matter of choice, to “someone else”. (On top of such new “benefits”, over 58%, and steadily rising, of adult American women have never been married and never had children, but still enjoy gratis all the societal benefits that their grandmothers actually earned.) (See Footnote #3.)
Hard working white men with families and decent incomes were irrelevant to the outcome. These are the primary American taxpayers. They are also our society’s biggest fools. These are the guys who get stuck with paying most of the costs for the lifestyle choices of others.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” – Plato
An old political adage goes: “Change is most likely to come when it benefits those with the power to make it a reality.” American women have been using their huge majority power to relentlessly change our society to suit themselves since 1980. And yet they never stop whining. In fact, the more they change things to suit themselves, the more they whine.
American women will sell their votes to whichever politician or political party offers them the most free stuff for “very special me” paid for by “someone else”. They don’t care one bit about the nation or its future, or even about their society’s ability to pay for all those free goodies. It sure beats going out there and actually earning their way in the arena in some fashion that’s beneficial to us all. American women can’t even be bothered to have and raise and properly educate enough children to become tomorrow’s working taxpayers desperately needed to pay for all their own burgeoning entitlements – the very thing they were designed to do. (Just a suggestion that they reduce some of those entitlements will automatically incur the wrath of god, the kiss of death, the fury of 100 million banshees.) The hard stuff is strictly for lesser mortals, such as many millions of Third World immigrants we now routinely import, who WILL have those children. (Talk about “out-sourcing”!) When I contemplate modern tragedies like that most critical of all American industries – our incredibly expensive yet continually failing female-dominated “education” industry – I keep searching for something worthwhile somewhere that all those female leaches, perpetually demanding “equality”, actually contribute to our society. All they do is sit on their throne making incessant whiny demands of everyone else. With all that political power, they won’t even stand up and scream about what has been happening to American boys for the past forty years. And they indoctrinate their clones from birth through college with the same sickening narcissism. (If women can’t make an industry they have always owned and ruled succeed, what makes anyone think they can make anything else succeed? I guess it’s a good thing that simple logic is not one of the things they teach at those schools.)
By the way, anyone who views American politics as a simple sports game is an idiot. No matter which side wins, you can ignore all those tens of millions on the other side only at your own peril. Their numbers are just too huge. Any rational person viewing the size of the losing side has to conclude that their views must have something worthy of consideration, that the proper way forward is to hold to your own principles while also trying to accommodate at least some of the views of the losing side. Otherwise all you are doing is arrogantly imposing a “tyranny of the majority” on the minority, guaranteeing that your actions will only engender resistance, resentment, animosity, and a deepening determination by the other side to reciprocate in kind after their next victory. Such juvenile approaches only guarantee stalemate, only ensure that the country moves nowhere except backwards. Adults who are actually intelligent would seek common ground, make compromises, so that it is possible to move everyone forward together according to the same principles that built this great nation. Unfortunately this has not been the case ever since the childish Baby Boomers took over American politics forty years ago. American politics has become a game for spoiled children on the school playground.
If you think that I enjoy being forced to pay for the choices the majority women make, think again. Not only does it piss me off, it also ensures that I, as a logical person, will seek ways to compensate for my enforced losses. So, for starters, do not expect me to pick up your dinner tab.
* This figure is probably inflated. Most American men have an automatic predisposition to respond to such questions in the way they think women want them to respond, i.e., they lie.)
Addendum (January 2013): In 2012, President Obama won election by getting 62,611,250 votes (50.4%) out of 124,046,580 votes cast. Just 588,000 voters pushed his popular vote tally above 50%. Just 3,476,770 votes (2.8%) separated winner from loser. This was a typically very close American national election – and one that saw a higher-than-usual male voter participation. But President Obama with a very smart strategy was able to garner 332 electoral votes (61.7%), while his opponent, Mitt Romney, got only 206 (38.3%) of the 538 electoral college votes, giving Obama a very clear victory. The results were quite similar to the 2008 election, but this time Obama lost Indiana and North Carolina, and his closest margin of victory was Florida, where just 74,300 votes (0.88%) out of 8,490,000 votes cast gave him all of Florida’s 29 electoral college votes. Actually it’s very rare for an incumbent Democrat candidate to win the popular vote for his second term; since Roosevelt was the last Democrat to do so, 68 years ago, history indicated that Obama desperately needed the electoral college to stay in office. Not surprisingly, those on the left who are always clamoring for eliminating the electoral college were silent this time. As usual, in 2012 Democrats were very heavy winners in cities, especially on the east and west coasts, where people are much more government-dependent, while Republicans were heavy winners in suburban and rural areas, especially in the heartland, where people are much more self-reliant. It probably helped Obama that a really huge 100,000,000 (44%) of eligible American voters (225,000,000) did not vote; a large majority of these voters were men. It also helped Obama that the Republicans went through a very long, costly and brutal primary season before settling on their standard-bearer – Romney. (Other candidates seeking the Republican nomination did a lot of Obama’s work by chewing up Romney even before Romney won the nomination as the Republican candidate to challenge Obama.) (Romney got 59,134,475 popular votes (47.7%), and a range of very small third parties got another 2,300,859 popular votes (1.9%). The party that actually best espouses policies claimed by broad Republican principles, the Libertarian Party, was a very distant third-place winner with 1,275,827 popular votes, so it’s safe to say that the Republicans, in order to win the votes of women, is no longer the party it once was even though it still suffers from labels affixed to it by Democrats.)
White Men. If only white men had voted in 2012, Romney would have won 45 states with 501 electoral votes, while Obama would have won just 5 states with 37 electoral votes. It is figures like these that everyone uses as justification for throwing around the “racial” factor accusation. But what it REALLY shows is how inconsequential is the white male vote. Just consider how very far from the total results were the votes of white men; these guys were off in a world all their own – still delusionally believing that this is the same country their group founded, built, defended and nourished for their children.
(Independent white men like me, rather than being so enamored with a Romney who seemed to lack a certain fire-in-the-belly, were more concerned about Obama’s total lack of experience at running anything or even any real record as an elected representative. Then there were Obama’s sophomoric views on America’s current wars, her military services, her “foreign policy”, etc.. For the record: I would have quit my day job and become a full-time campaign worker for a man who had actually earned the office and fully deserved to “make history” – Colin Powell. I know of no American woman who doesn’t vanish in his shadow, primarily because their chief talents are whining about “me”, blame-shifting, avoiding accountability, and incessantly making demands of everyone else. American women will never lead anyone until their acceptance of responsibility for others, including those hated men and their sons, exceeds the endless rights they claim for themselves. For example, if women can’t even run a first-rate K-12 education system equitably for all, including boys, what makes anyone think they can run the nation equitably for all? Get it? What’s the record? But, never having been the choice target in the vicious free-fire zone, they do make first-rate dictators. So in the end it all boils down to that old familiar “tyranny of the majority” .)
President Obama won election by getting 50.4% of the votes cast. This was a typically very close American national election – decided by less than 3% of the American electorate. But President Obama, with a very smart strategy, was able to garner 332 electoral votes (61.7%). The difference was the women’s vote, especially the urban women’s vote, and it easily buried the men’s vote. Over 12,000,000 more women voted than did men. This number is over three times larger than the difference in the popular vote. But these differences were far greater in urban areas – where Obama racked up his electoral votes.
Obama won on the basis of what urban women wanted, and were promised, for themselves. For women, it’s NOT about ‘what’s best for the nation’; it’s solely about ‘what’s best for ME’. Just contemplate how far off the end result were the votes of white men. So when you hear statements like, “the American people”, “the voters”, “the public”, etc., ALWAYS ask the speaker to further refine their terms. WHICH American people? WHICH American voters? There are now really huge differences between what women want and what men want, and women literally swamp EVERYTHING. This is what our Founding Fathers referred to as the “tyranny of the majority“, and why our system includes the only remedy possible – civil rights law – applicable to everyone equally, from black slaves to disfranchised women to drafted soldiers to oppressed boys.
Race in our elections is almost totally irrelevant. It’s just used by lobbies to keep old myths alive, and to hide the real power that women have. Men do all the bloviating, but women do all the deciding, and they long ago decided that men are irrelevant. White men exist primarily to take all the blame, pay all the bills and do all the hard stuff – for all the “special” people. And they’re stupid enough to keep doing it. This is especially true when you consider that only about 18% of the US population is “Non-Hispanic White Male” between the ages of 18 and 65, and that number is steadily dropping. (See Footnote #5.)
And, please, spare us this exceedingly simplistic fixation on “money” in American politics. It’s just very old and trite propaganda espoused by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Liberals are always complaining that rich conservatives “buy” elections by pumping big money into conservative election campaigns. But, despite a continuation of that same old liberal spin, in the 2014 mid-term US elections, rich liberals considerably outspent rich conservatives, and liberals still took a drubbing at the polls. (That was a definite sign that liberals were in really BIG trouble and were just using the “money” dodge to diffuse that reality.) Whether conservative or liberal, most of that money benefits television stations and similar entities dependent on advertising much more than candidates. The public quickly reaches a saturation point with all that political advertising, and then simply tunes them out. But spending on those ads equals television stations’ total income from all other sources for a whole year, so they are certain to fan political controversy whenever they can. Most Americans with half a brain ignore that “white noise” election campaign nonsense like they ignore ads for breakfast cereal.
It’s not money that wins elections in America; it’s votes. Always has been, always will be. You don’t “buy” elections with the advertising everyone lives with during every waking moment of their lives; you “buy” elections by promising to shower your voters with money confiscated from “someone else” – something that literally defines the existence of most American women. American politics is ALL about powerful special interest unions and lobbies – that can deliver both money AND votes. The two groups with by far the largest, richest and most powerful unions in America are those representing bureaucrats and “educators”, all with huge women majorities. And no lobbies on planet Earth are more powerful than those representing the interests of American women. So when you add together the effect of these unions and lobbies, all dedicated to getting as much of other people’s money for “me” as possible, it’s not surprising that the majority women vote has decided all elections in the US since 1980. They just blame “money” to hide the truth – that American women will sell their votes to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.
Footnote #1. People age 65 and over made up one-eighth (12.8%) of the US population in 2009, and at age 85 and older there were more than twice as many women as men. (The number of people aged 65 and older is expected to rise rapidly over the next twenty years to a point above 28% of the population – a number of people equal to the entire population of Germany, the largest country in Europe – and remain there for another twenty-five years.) These are the Baby Boomer people who didn’t have half the number of children needed to pay for their entitlements in retirement while refusing for forty years to properly adjust those entitlements even as their life expectancies continued to lengthen. This, of course, is where young single urban women today get their values (and all their rights). It’s also what makes political campaigns in America a stupid parade of lies, a circus full of vague childish nonsense hidden in soaring rhetoric signifying absolutely nothing, because no one is brave enough to speak the truth to our legions of irresponsible voting citizens.
What this country needs is s few million more immigrants like South Africa’s Elon Musk – brave, bright, energetic people who more than pay their own way. (They just need to find some other country in which to keep their money.)
Footnote #2. Presumably the government is also the party responsible for raising the sons of all these single mothers as healthy, well-educated and productive members of society; it certainly won’t be their mug shots that ever appear beside their son’s. American women only accept congratulations for their successful off-spring, never the responsibility for their far more countless failures. (Boys who fail are universally presumed to have “created themselves”; this is far easier than admitting the truth and assigning blame where it belongs.) These days you can buy a lot of votes from politicians promising that utter nonsense, the nonsense that, like all other rights, rights of personal choice for women also come with zero responsibility. (It goes along with that other nonsense – that unless the woman consents as another of her rights of choice to engage in unprotected sex, it’s rape, but if children result from her personal choice, then the father is responsible.) Women only get rights; the responsibility parts are always for “someone else”. Logic is unnecessary, and unwelcome, in a society ruled by self-serving feminine emotion (and bought votes).
(Think about this one a moment: If women don’t consent to sex, it’s rape. If women do consent to sex, it’s a choice. If women have sex without protection, it’s another choice. If women get pregnant, it’s a third choice. If women decide to terminate that pregnancy, it’s a choice. If women decide to have the child, it’s a choice. Five consecutive choices that women alone make – in a single natural procreation activity. So why do men have to assume the responsibility for all the choices women make? Women certainly don’t pay for
the choices men make. It seems to the rational mind that responsible adults should pay for their own choices. That’s logic. But it doesn’t work in the twisted world women have created in their own minds and then infected their clones with the same asinine nonsense. It’s this kind of perverted self-serving “thinking”, in a very wide range of other arenas, that has ensured my country has gone nowhere since around 1970. It’s the type of utter nonsense that drives thinking men stark raving mad.)
Footnote #3. It’s no mystery why all those millions of very well-educated privileged American women are not out there competing with each other to build the next generation of gigantic global corporations employing many millions in good-paying jobs. Why should they? Life is sweet enough as it is. Competing hard in the arena to build corporations with brilliant innovation doesn’t seem to be a lifestyle choice that especially interests them, even with all the “minority” inducements offered by government for the past half century. It’s far easier to sit and complain about the corporations founded and built by those dumb men despite everything that women keep throwing in their paths. Jobs? Who needs jobs?
As an illustration of just how asinine this crap can get, try this one: Back in 1999, some black southern farmers won a law suit that claimed the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for decades had discriminated against black farmers applying for farm loans by turning down their applications while approving such applications from their white neighbors. Faced with perhaps another 1,000 such law suits, the government agreed to pay each of those black farmers $50,000. But USDA had already destroyed the records, so claimants were allowed to file for compensation with no evidence of discrimination, or even proof that they had ever even worked the land. A decade later, in order to buy votes, the Obama Administration broadened those who could file such claims to the other usual “victim” groups of Hispanics, Native Americans and, naturally, women. What was originally envisioned as a compensation program that could cost the taxpayers perhaps $50 million for 1,000 claims has so far cost those taxpayers $4,400,000,000 (that’s $4.4 Billion) for over 90,000 claims. Some claimants were as young as 4 years old. One Arkansas family pocketed a total of $500,000. In 16 zip codes the number of successful claimants exceeded the number of farms owned by people of any race or gender, and a third went to people in mostly urban areas. Nothing pays so well as self-proclaimed “victimhood”. Which group is the only group that can not benefit from such ideology? The 18% that comprises my own is the only responsible party left standing. Is it any wonder that so many of us are pissed off at all the stupidity?
Footnote #4. In conjunction with its “Julia” campaign targeting young urban women seeking a socialist cradle-to-grave utopia, the New York Times has reported that the 2012 Obama campaign also drew heavily on the tools of sociology and behavioral psychology (the same two fields I pursued before shifting to the military) to win his election by taking advantage of the expertise of a panel of unpaid academic advisers. The group, which called itself the “consortium of behavioral scientists,” was headed by Dr. Craig Fox, a Los Angeles psychologist who specializes in behavioral economics at UCLA. Members of the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia. They taught large groups of campaign workers a variety of psychological methods to get voters to take certain actions they wanted them to take, i.e., to commit themselves in small ways toward the desired result.
One of the chief methods used was investment in prospective voters on a personal level and then subtly getting them to make some small gesture toward the candidate or subtly inducing them toward the voter’s own desire to conform to their group. But, in order to approach prospective voters on a personal level, the campaign workers already knew, through very exhaustive pre-campaign research of which groups could ensure the President’s re-election, a great deal about the prospective voters before the psychological methods were used. They thus began from a position of advantage with specifically targeted potential voters. This was most evident in the very selectively targeted and successful Julia campaign. For example, knowing that certain groups of potential voters are already pre-disposed toward having the government pay for some personal benefit they sought, the rest of the task was to ensure that they would actually take the necessary action and cast a vote for the candidate who promised to provide that government benefit. The main objective was to increase the probability that they would show up on election day and actually vote. They did. These people essentially sold their votes, and they were happy to do so. (When asked about the outside psychologists, the Obama campaign would neither confirm nor deny a relationship with them.) I learned most of these techniques a half century ago, and, yes, they can be very effective – especially if you already know a lot about those you are targeting.
(Note: This was only one of the highly sophisticated methods used by those ensconced in “The Cave”, a technology-savvy “think tank” hidden “off-site” in Chicago working on behalf of the Obama national re-election campaign. Before the methods described above were employed, for example, massive data banks from a wide range of sources, including social media, were co-mingled on powerful computers using very advanced software to identify, with a very high degree of probability, those voters who were least likely to vote for Obama and those most likely to vote for Obama. This enabled the campaign workers to concentrate their efforts on the one small group of individuals between these two that would likely to be most susceptible to very tailored personal efforts. The software even identified exactly where such voters or potential voters lived. This detailed targeting, in turn, maximized the efforts of campaign workers by ensuring beforehand the highest degree of probability of success. When the campaign worker knocked on the door, he or she already knew who the voter was and which technique would be used with them.)
Obama won the election on the basis of young urban women who actually voted.
This is a small-scale use of technology which the National Security Agency (NSA) has taken to exponentially more sophisticated levels using football fields of super-computers manipulating astonishing amounts of data on every soul within its reach. It would be child’s play for this NSA system to be used to decide a national election, and to do so with almost zero error and zero chance of being overcome. NSA efforts need only focus on “meta-data” – which is indisputable evidence of actual actions taken by citizens and is FAR more revealing about them than anything they might say. People say literally anything, but it’s their actions that speak far greater volumes. And very often they are not even aware of those actions – which makes them sitting ducks.
Footnote #5. 2010 US Census Total population – 309,000,000
The medium age was 37.5, an increase of 8 years over 1960 (29.5). But retirement age (65) is still what it was in 1960.
Male – 49% 151,410,000
Female – 51% 157,590,000 (Difference – +6,180,000)
Most of that difference is females age 65 and older (+5,542,064), a group with very high voting participation and heavily dependent on Social Security and Medicare.
Males out-number females until age 30 and are in balance with females from age 30 to 35. From age 35 on, females progressively out-number males, and their voting rate also rises.
Total under age 18 – 26% (80,340,000)
Total over age 65: 13% (40,267,984)
Over age 65: Male – 17,362,960 (43%) Female – 22,905,024 (57%) ( +5,542,064)
Total age 18 to 65: 61% (188,490,000)
In 2010, 16% (50,500,000) of the US population identified themselves as Hispanic, even though they are counted as White in the census. (White (58.8%) plus Hispanic (16%) are 74.8% of the US population, but Hispanic numbers are rising much faster than White numbers; White will drop below 50% of the US population in a few more years.) So the following differentiates between White and Hispanic.
White male over age 65: 58.8% x 17,362,962 = 10,209,444
White (not Hispanic) 58.8% x 309,000,000 = 181,692,000
Adult (ages 18-100) 74% x 181,692,000 = 134,452,080
Adult (ages 18-65) 61% x 181,692,000 = 110,832,120
Male (ages 18-100) 49% x 134,452,080 = 65,881,519 (22% of population)
Male (ages 18-65) 65,881,518 – 10,209,444 = 55,672,075 (18% of population)
(Other Race: Hispanic 16% (50,500,000); Black 13.6% (42,024,000); Asian 5.6% (17,304,000); Native 2.1% (6,489,000), Other 3.9% (12,051,000) of total population.)
Political Voter Spin. Recently a little article appeared in a number of news publications that drew attention to a Pew Research study that found that 43% of non-voters (people who are not registered to vote or who said they were unlikely to vote) are Hispanic, Black or some other racial or ethnic minority. Without providing further information, the intent of the article clearly was to convey the impression that such groups are grossly under-represented in America’s elections. After all, the 43% figure seems like a really huge number of “disenfranchised” people. But the 2010 US Census had shown that these groups collectively constitute 41.2% of the US population, so the 43% figure meshed almost perfectly with the composition of the whole population. Such people are no more “disenfranchised” than are whites (and their numbers in the population are rising much faster than are those of Whites).
The article also stated that 46% of non-voters (people who are not registered to vote or who said they were unlikely to vote) have family incomes less than $30,000. Again without providing further information, the intent clearly was to convey the impression that such “poor” people are also grossly under-represented in America’s elections. Here the problem is more difficult. What is the difference between households and families? What is the racial and ethnic distribution of the unemployed during The Great Recession? How much are the incomes of such people being supplemented by generous “safety net” welfare programs? Etc.. The 2010 US Census had shown that 31% of all American households earn less than $30,000, but 54.8% of all American employed individuals earn less than $30,000. So the 46% figure falls somewhere between the two other figures and indicates that the “poor” are no more under-represented in America’s elections than any other income group.
Household income is affected by a variety of factors, such as population aging and household composition. The huge Baby Boomer generation is beginning to leave the work force and flood into lower-income retirement. The Great Recession has had profound impact on the entire American workforce, with well over 16,000,000 people at all previous income levels now either unemployed or simply no longer in the workforce. On average Asian workers earn both household and individual incomes that are significantly higher than any other group, including Whites. Half the children born in this country are born to single women exercising their childbirth choices and another quarter are being raised by single women also exercising their choices in divorce. Because of such free choices, only a quarter of American children can count on having the same two parents in the home through age 18. Etc.. Such single parent women constitute a huge portion of “households” (or “families”).
With such important considerations in mind, US median household income was $51,939 in 2013, essentially unchanged from the previous year. This median figure is the center of the “middle class”. However, this median figure has trended down since 2007, falling 8% from the pre-recession peak of $56,436. It remains well below the 1999 record of $56,895. But that $51,939 figure for 2013 is heavily inflated by the 9% of American workers who earn incomes above $150,000. If you removed this small number of workers with very high incomes and just considered the remaining 91%, the median income would be considerably lower than the $51,939. In fact, the largest group of all American households (37%) has an income between $20,000 and $50,000. A “normal” American household income is around $44,000, and it is very heavily determined by the choices people make. It remains entirely possible for almost anyone to avoid poverty in America simply by (1) completing high school, and (2) avoiding childbirth until after marriage.
As a piece of clever propaganda, the article naturally made no mention of the gender of voters and non-voters, and we all know that far more women of all racial and ethnic groups vote than do men, and they do so in such majorities that they have decided all elections in the US since 1980 – for the last three decades. And their chief concern at the polls is to get “someone else” to pick of the tab for the free choices they make.
And in the most twisted perversion of American democracy possible, it’s against the law to criticize this arrogant self-serving majority, to hold them accountable, much less to even speak the truth about them. The asinine notion of “all rights and no responsibility” is steadily destroying the nation.