Reason

Slate's Obama Vote Tumbles From 96% to 83%; Mag Claims Real Bubble Is Among 'White People'

The online political opinion magazine Slate, to its great credit, has published its fourth quadrennial presidential voting survey among staffers and contributors (you can see Reason's exercise here). Slate's results for 2012?

|

You would totally miss this kind of stuff, admit it

The online political opinion magazine Slate, to its great credit, has published its fourth quadrennial presidential voting survey among staffers and contributors (you can see Reason's exercise here). Slate's results for 2012?

29 Barack Obama, 2 Mitt Romney, 2 Gary Johnson, 1 Jill Stein, 1 nobody. Or, if you prefer percentages, 83-6-6-3-3. (The two Johnson votes came from former Reasoner David Weigel, and Account Manager Ryan Trow.) Let's stack up that tally against previous years:

2008: 55 Barack Obama, 1 John McCain, 1 Bob Barr (96-2-2)

2004: 46 John Kerry, 5 George W. Bush, 1 Michael Badnarik, 1 David Cobb (87-9-2-2)

2000: 29 Al Gore, 4 George W. Bush, 2 Ralph Nader, 2 Harry Browne (78-11-5-5)

Though Obama's once-Castroesque support has now dipped down to positively sub-Kerryian levels, Slate Editor David Plotz still feels the need to defend the massive pro-Obama tilt:

I don't think Obama's Slate victory reflects a bias that has corrupted the magazine during the campaign. There are obvious reasons why Slate would lean heavily toward Obama: Slate's voters tend to skew young and all polls show younger voters favoring the Democrat. And we are journalists. To quote [former Slate editor Michael] Kinsley: "No doubt it is true that most journalists vote Democratic, just as most business executives (including most media owners) vote Republican, though neither tendency is as pronounced as their respective critics believe. This is a natural result of the sort of people who are attracted to various careers. It is not the product of any conspiracy."

Also, most of our staff and contributors live in Democratic-tilting cities in blue states on the East and West coasts.

It might be pointed out that Reason staffers, too, "skew young," "are journalists," and mostly "live in Democratic-tilting cities in blue states on the East and West coasts." So there are other contributing factors at play here.

I guess he knows a thing or two about white people

In fact, if you believe Slate contributor Tom Scocca (whose vote-disclosure is absent from this year's exercise UPDATE: Scocca says he's fixing that now), the real skew in this election is white people voting for Mitt Romney. Scocca's look-at-me-I'm-being-controversial lede: 

I'm voting for Barack Obama on Election Day. This fact will appear on Slate's list of which candidates its writers are voting for, a list which will almost certainly look like the 2008 list, which is to say an almost unbroken string of "Obama." People will look at this list—Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama—and they will say, Look at the Slate writers, inside their bubble.

And they will be wrong. There is a real, airtight bubble in this election, but it's not Obama's. As a middle-aged white man, in fact, I'm breaching it. White people—white men in particular—are for Mitt Romney. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney's candidacy would simply not be viable. Most kinds of Americans see no reason to vote for him.

This fact is obfuscated because white people control the political media. 

So, Romney's 23-point advantage among Caucasians is more bubbletastic than Obama's 76-point spread among Slatesters. On second thought, I can see why Plotz was being defensive.

In any case, here we are on Election Eve, and there are now three publications I'm aware of that have applied journalism's haughty transparency standards to themselves. This fact is shameful. Show us your vote, political journalists!

NEXT: Suicide Car Bombing Kills 50 Syrian Government Troops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is it Wednesday yet?

  2. White Black people?white men in particular? are for Mitt Romney Barack Obama. White men Black people are supporting Mitt Romney Barack Obama to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans. Without this narrow, tribal appeal, Romney’s Obama’s candidacy would simply not be viable.

    Just too easy.

    1. You’re right. Everyone should like Romney.

      But which Romney?

      The liberal MASS governor? The conservative 2012 GOP primary candidate? The 2012 general election regulation-loving, big-spending candidate? The “Russia is our #1 enemy” Cold-War guy?

      1. Where did he say everyone should like Romney?

        1. He is implying that there is a good reason for white men (bitter-clingers I presume) to vote for Romney. But there is none.

          Its 2008 all over again – THAR COMIN’ FER YER GUNS!

          1. There’s no good reason to vote for either of them. The only thing stopping the Democrats from proposing more gun control laws is that it’s political suicide. But warrantless wiretapping, control of the internet, indefinite detention, assassination of American citizens, and a garantuan Federal government with no real limit on its power are all politically palatable and all things that Dems – including Obusha – support.

          2. He is implying that there is a good reason for white men (bitter-clingers I presume) to vote for Romney.

            No, he isn’t, you oblivious pecker track. He’s implying that there is no reason for black voters to favor Obama in huge numbers. And there isn’t, other than base appeals to bigotry.

          3. He’s directly mocking the idea that voting for Romney is the result of a white “bubble”, by using the same phrasing in an argument about Obama and black people.

            You’re just lying out your ass again, and it shows.

          4. Seriously, shreek, what good reason is there for black people to support Obama.

            They have suffered more than white people under his administration, with employment, net worth and incomes all taking bigger hits.

            They disagree with him on social issues (gay marriage, abortion on demand).

            Even the big spending programs that are supposed to benefit them get siphoned off by the crony/grievance industry.

            Other than raw racial tribalism, why should they vote for him?

            1. Other than raw racial tribalism, why should they vote for him?

              Free stuff.

              Plus the powers that be in black communities are better off under Obama…(stimulus money)…so they sell the shit out of him to their people.

          5. The derp is strong in this one.

          6. Buttplug said: “He is implying that there is a good reason for white men (bitter-clingers I presume) to vote for Romney. But there is none.”

            Uh, no. He didn’t imply that. He is ridiculing Scocca’s idiotic assumption that middle-aged white men voting for Romney constitutes some kind of racial solidarity sans reason, while blacks (or liberals) voting for Obama do so because they are rational beings, not sheeple.

            You really do have trouble with the whole reading comprehension thing, don’t you?

          7. Or, if you have the least bit of interest in reality, he is implying (correctly) that the percentage of black people voting for Obama is much, much higher than the percentage of white men voting for Romney.

      2. You’re right. Everyone should like Romney Obama.

        But which Romney Obama?

        The liberal MASS governor community organizer? The conservative 2012 GOP primary candidate hawk with the kill list and drone strikes? The 2012 general election regulation-loving, big-spending candidate[we’ll let this stand]? The “Russia is our #1 enemy” Cold-War “I’ll have more flexibility after the election, Vladimir” guy?

        See, it really IS too easy.

        1. You’re proud of pwning a buttplug?

          1. No – it’s TOO easy.

            1. TOO Easy by far. Liberals are like baby groundhogs that don’t know what that “boom-crack” noise is even when their litter mates drop dead. Groundhogs dig holes that can kill horses and cows; so they have to go. Liberals condone kill lists, endless war, suppression of civil rights and massive government debt. I like groundhogs better.

    2. Tom Scocca must read and like Andrew Sullivan. Look everyone… it’s the Confederacy all over again!!!

    3. There really are people who can’t recognize that Obama has been a shitty president. It’s a countrywide state of denial. It’s like the old “Da Bears” skits on SNL, only the stakes are higher–and real.

      1. Hmm, also Chicago. Interesting.

    4. Dammit, R C! I was going to point out what a bare assertion that Socca idiot wrote!

      Now my day is ruined. Thanks a lot.

    5. That was my thought. Whites are giving Romney a 23% edge, but what about the much larger edge among Blacks that tilts toward Obama? I guess that’s ok.

  3. White men aren’t “normal Americans”?

    1. No. They can’t jump. QED.

    2. Do you think he was being hipster ironic or is he just an idiot?

      Did anybody else flashback to Daryl Gates talking about how black people didn’t react to chokeholds like normal people?

      1. I think Matt Welch is writing about him because Matt Welch thinks Tom Scocca is an idiot.

      2. Can someone be an idiot ironically?

        1. Is that not the definition of ‘hipster’?

  4. I would very much like to introduce that face to my pitching wedge.

  5. When you’ve lost Dave Weigel…

    1. He’s not worth denting my Calloways over.

      nuff said

  6. I notice the Slate contributors conspicuously didn’t vote for Obama in 2000 and 2004.

  7. That article is the dumbest thing I’ve read lately. I quit at this point:

    In one, President Obama is running for re-election after a difficult but largely competent first term, in which the multiple economic and foreign-policy disasters of four years ago have at least settled down into being ongoing economic and foreign-policy problems.

    Really, I should know better than to click on Slate links by now.

    1. I actually had a liberal say to me a few weeks ago that she couldn’t see a reason to fire Obama. My jaw hit the floor. I think I got her to back off from that assertion a little bit, but who knows what really stuck.

    2. The argument in that quote seemingly boils down to “Obama has allowed the various crises which began under George W. Bush to metastasize into semi-permanent problems, and for this he deserves a tremendous amount of credit.”

      Uh, what?

  8. You would think there would be some older adult editor who worked at Slate to keep Scocca from embarassing himself. His whole point boils down to “if a candidates supporters didn’t like him, he wouldn’t even be viable”. You could rewrite that entire column and substitute Obama for Romney and Women or Minorities for men and it would be just as valid such as it is. Of course the gender gap has largely closed in this election and the only voting froup that is anywhere near as monolithic in their support of Obama as the Slate writers are black people. Do they in Scocca’s opinion live in a bubble?

    It is not that the writers at Slate are Dems and Obama supporters. Everyone already knew that. It is that they can’t come up with a better reason to explain their support beyond “every normal person thinks this way” that makes them so pathetic. And that one of them does that in a article explaining how everyone else lives in a bubble makes it double bonus pathetic.

    1. You would think there would be some older adult editor who worked at Slate

      Yeah. But Slate let Jack Shafer go.

    2. I haven’t looked at Slate since Kinsley left. I didn’t often agree with Kinsley, but I respected his point of view, and occasionally he’d cause me to reconsider my opinion. The Slate articles that you all post from time to time don’t come anywhere close to that kind of editorial standard.

      1. They are terrible. Slate exists to tell liberals what they want to hear. There is never any thought put into it.

  9. If you’re gonna have a drone war kill list, it might as well be from a guy you can feel good about.

    1. I have seen that argument as well, without any irony or jest intended. At this point the left is immune to parody.

  10. To quote [former Slate editor Michael] Kinsley: “No doubt it is true that most journalists vote Democratic, just as most business executives (including most media owners) vote Republican, though neither tendency is as pronounced as their respective critics believe.

    Right, except for the fucking 80+% of your staff voting Democratic being insanely pronounced.

    1. He’s wrong anyway. Most media owners vote Democrat…

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/m…..rage-obama

  11. “It might be pointed out that Reason staffers, too, “skew young,” “are journalists,” and mostly “live in Democratic-tilting cities in blue states on the East and West coasts.” So there are other contributing factors at play here.”

    The interesting part of the Reason poll of its staff was where it pitted Romney against Obama on economic freedom.

    When Reason staffers were asked, “Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom?”, by my count, I saw only one Reason staffer clearly say that Obama would be better for economic freedom.

    I think there’s a bias in terms of which candidate is better or worse on economic freedom–but the bias isn’t in the journalists. It’s in the facts.

    Obama is a freaking disgrace on economic freedom. Whether it’s the freedom to be forced to buy health insurance or the freedom to be forced to use your paychecks to nationalize GM and overpay UAW workers, Obama thinks you should have the economic freedom to do as you’re told.

    When forced to choose between Obama and Romney, anybody that prefers Obama is quite plainly someone who doesn’t consider economic freedom valuable.

    1. How soon you forget Romneycare. You have no idea how bad a President Romney would be for economic freedom.

      1. Free condoms for all, or just for the wealthy? THAT’s the important question.

      2. Oh, so an individual mandate in one state is just as bad as a nation-wide mandate? Idiot.

        1. Plus there’s the fact that Obama prefers single-payer nationalized insurance, but had to settle for Obamacare thanks to the Republican opposition, whereas Romney probably preferred deregulation in Massachusetts, but had to settle for Romneycare thanks to the socialist opposition.

          1. Didn’t Romney promise to sign a repeal of the individual mandate?

            Why wouldn’t that make him better than Obama on healthcare in terms of economic freedom?

      3. “How soon you forget Romneycare.”

        Thank you for admitting that ObamaCare is a disgrace to economic freedom.

        I didn’t say Romney was a libertarian capitalist.

        I said that when compared to Romney, only one of the Reason staff identify Obama as clearly being worse for economic freedom.

        1. *EDIT*

          I said that when compared to Romney, only one of the Reason staff identify Obama as clearly being [better] for economic freedom.

      4. No one has forgotten it. Libertarians are the only people who still bring it up. Besides, Obama had his chance to pursue economic freedom and he sucks ass. The BEST fucking grade anyone on this site has EVER given Romney is that me MIGHT suck ass a little less.

        And I’m not convinced you’d know economic freedom if it bit you in your vagina.

  12. “This fact is obfuscated because white people control the political media.”

    Wait. I thought the Jews controled the media. Now it’s White People? All of them? Or just a select sub-section of them?

    Collectivism, how the fuck does it work?

    1. I thought the Jews controled the media.

      It’s really the Irish. You know that old joke about alcohol being invented to keep the Irish from taking over the world? WELL IT DIDN’T WORK.

      1. More whisky for me then?! If the Irsh have shrugged off demon alcohol, that is.

      2. The Irish folk-people control the hip-hop music industry. We all remember the band Kris Kross and their hit “Jump Around”, don’t we?

  13. I do hope that Slate has some actual data to back up the claim that most business executives vote Republican.

  14. So, Romney’s 23-point advantage among Caucasians is more bubbletastic than Obama’s 76-point spread among Slatesters.

    Yes, it is definately middle-aged white men living in a bubble. It could not possibly be that anyone else is in a bubble; or could it:

    The reason Obama won in 2008, while losing whites by 12 points, was his 80-18 percent support among nonwhites, a record 26 percent of the electorate four years ago. He has a similar margin now, 76-21 percent, including 96 percent support among blacks and 66 percent among Hispanics.

  15. Romney is the one relying on tribal support for his viability? Well either 90%+ of voting blacks agree with Obama’s every stance, or they’re just voting on the ethnic/party line (to the exclusion of logic and common sense). Leave it to Slate to assume that it’s more likely that Obama is the single greatest consensus builder in the history of humanity and that Romney is in fact the electoral tribalist. Occum’s Razor obliterates that analysis.

  16. Do regular forum [quote] work here??
    anyway:
    Dan Kois, senior editor in culture: Obama

    I am voting for Barack Obama because all I care about are social issues and I don’t understand the economy. So maybe Mitt Romney would be way better for my pocketbook, but hell if I really know!
    ——
    What a shithead…

    1. 1. Is that real? Please tell me it isn’t.

      2. If it is real, I’ll assume that by “social issues” he means that Obama paid lip service to gay marriage and gives out free contraception. Because I can’t think of any other “social issues” where Obama’s been, well, liberal.

      1. It’s real, check the story. I can’t believe how democrats completely overlook the ongoing wars, drone warfare, civil liberty violations etc. that have expanded under Obama.
        I guess republicans where the same under Bush.
        Which only points to the “it’s okay as long as my team does it” mentality in American politics.

      2. Unless that guy wants his abortion paid for or is gay and wants to join the military, on what social issues is Obama doing well?

  17. White men are supporting Mitt Romney to the exclusion of logic or common sense, in defiance of normal Americans.

    Umm, yeah.

    1. Brooks,

      This is just a taste of the temper fit they are going to have if they lose tommorow.

      1. Yummy tears of unfathomable sadness are queued and ready to pour. The sadist in me waits with baited breath. I’ve been looking forward to this for a couple of years now.

        1. I just want to see these people lose. And I would like to have a President who is considered just an ordinary lousy President instead of the fucking leader of a cult.

          1. And I would like to have a President who is considered just an ordinary lousy President instead of the fucking leader of a cult.

            This. The last two years have been entirely too close to torch-lit rally land for my taste. I am looking forward to the media remembering to do its job again, and putting the investigation back into investigative journalism.

            1. I don’t think liberals can ever be trusted with a black President again. We can have a conservative one. But liberals have shown that they lose their minds over a black one to such an extent that they can’t be trusted with one.

          2. I, for one, am anxious to see what an Obama concession speech would be like. The man is a petulant child in the mold of Joffrey Baratheon from ASOIAF and the very idea of losing the iron throne is such anathema to him that I seriously wonder if he would self-destruct under such a scenario.

            1. I suspect he will glare and put out a pouty lip and then read what the teleprompter and his handlers tell him to read. It won’t be pretty. But I doubt his handlers will allow him to meltdown, at least not in public.

  18. Alt alt text: “Don’t hate me cuz I’m white. Only I can hate me cuz I’m white.”

  19. I have no doubt there are people whom I know who think I am some sort of evil racist because I have publicly stated my desire to see the leader of their personality cult booted out of office on his useless ass.

    It’s okay. I can take it.

  20. This is a natural result of the sort of people who are attracted to various careers. It is not the product of any conspiracy.”

    *sigh*

    No one is saying it’s a ‘conspiracy’, we’re merely pointing out the fact that when your newsroom is 99.999% democrat, the stories that you choose to persue, the facts that you think are relevant and the issues you find a priority may be, well, skewed.

  21. I, for one, am anxious to see what an Obama concession speech would be like. The man is a petulant child in the mold of Joffrey Baratheon from ASOIAF and the very idea of losing the iron throne is such anathema to him that I seriously wonder if he would self-destruct under such a scenario.

    Excellent point.

    Nothing but epic LULZ, hopefully.

    1. Will he have time to put makeup over the bruises from the beating Michelle is going to give him for losing the election?

  22. though neither tendency is as pronounced as their respective critics believe…

    78%, 87%, 96%, 83%. But no, this quote from a former Slate editor totally disproves the reality of this overwhelming tendency.

  23. HOLY CRAP! 2 FOR ROMNEY! THATS A FRIGGIN TSUNAMI FOR THEM!

    1. I find it funny that Romney got more votes from Slate then he did from Reason.

      1. Obama sucks that much.

  24. The two Johnson votes came from former Reasoner David Weigel

    What the holy fucking crap?!?!?

    He really is a libertarian!!!

    Crap i guess i now have to back peddle all those things i said about him over the past 4 years.

  25. It does seem hypocritical that political journalists and editors think of transparency as fundamental to their craft, yet won’t publicly disclose their vote.

    I’m in California, and I’m voting for Gary Johnson for President — and voting for a Republican and Democrat for local representatives.

    Reading local newspaper editorials, they lean conservative in writing, but might vote liberal Democrat (I think?). As a reader, it would be interesting to see how they vote. I would have to guess that 80-85% of political journalists vote Democrat, but ya never know.

    I wouldn’t care who they vote for, and would rather it be transparent, but that’s easier said than done, I guess. Probably many readers would use it as culture warrior thing, but don’t us culture warriors already see the bias no matter what?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.