Election 2012

National Exit Polls Reveal an Extraordinarily Divided Electorate


Obama began his 2012 presidential victory speech praising the unity of our nation. Unfortunately, exit polls reveal a devastatingly polarized electorate propelled him to victory.

Obama declared:

[Our nation] moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression…the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.

But Obama failed to win modest margins across most demographic and political groups. Instead, he won big among some and Romney won big among others. According the national exit polls, Obama won big among young Americans, women, Latinos, African Americans, LGBT, unmarrieds, those making les than 50,000 a year, urban areas and the secular, and he did so with significant margins. In contrast, Romney won big among the religious, married, rural, older, and Caucasians. It's extraordinarily sad that demographic groups' voting was so polarized.

NEXT: Twenty-Three Years on From the Fall of the Berlin Wall Europe Depends on Germany

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. Now that the election is over, it’s cool that we don’t have to deal with polls anymore.

    Oh, wait…

  2. For all the talk about “free markets can never win Hispanics, they just love free stuff!” it’s remarkable that Romney did just as bad with Asians.

    1. Fucking Mongorians!

    2. Yeah, it puzzled me why Romney did so poorly with Asians. Asians usually vote Democrat, but Romney did really bad even relative to McCain. Obama was +47 with Asians this year, compared to +27 four years ago. Btw, I think this backs up my theory that minority identification with Democrats is primarily due to cultural branding rather than anything substantively philosophical. Almost all minority groups vote Democrat, and there are huge cultural, economic, educational, and social differences between those groups. To be fair, I think certain groups vote Republican for the same reason

      1. I think it is mostly branding. But latinos love big government. And we have an entire poverty industry that is doing its best to make sure that remains true.

        1. Perhaps, but he did even worse among Asians. let’s also remember that 98-99% of the electorate chose big government, not 51%.

          1. One thing about Latinos. 40% of them do not approve of amnesty. People act like they are this big single issue voting block who just want to open the boarders. They are not.

            1. This is true, once they get into the party they wont want anyone else to get in.

        2. The problem is now in addition to those groups they have successfully convinced women that they are all oppressed minorities.

          1. so let’s start oppressing them. if we’re to be blamed for it, might was well do it.

          2. Hence FREE BIRTH CONTROL! Every oppressed group now gets their own FREE SHIT.

            1. The 1% needs to convince liberals that they are an oppressed minority group as well.

          3. Exactly, I think that is another result of cultural branding. Same thing with young people. Republicans are the party of old, white, Christian men. Democrats are the party of young, minority women. At this point, it’s become self-reinforcing (on both sides)

            1. **Unmarried women**. Now you understand the zeal of Democrats for the cuckolding State.

      2. Re: Cultural branding

        I think this is close to the truth. The Southern Strategy branded republicans as the “anti-minority” party, and the branding has stuck.

        Other issues are certainly important. I think Obama’s new position on gay marriage caused him to get a lower percentage of black votes than in 2008, for example.

        1. No, there I would say that it’s mostly die-hard black Republicans returning home after voting for history in 2008.

    3. First what is defined as Asians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, Pakistanis, Philippines’s etc. Most do not follow the stereotype of hard working business owners. Some are working for little money and long hours for their relatives. Many are now government workers. Many receive or want to receive government assistance. Many come from countries where they expect the government to assist them.

      1. Oh, sure, there’s lots of differences. But on average, Asian-Americans are wealthy and educated. (And Romney did better among college grads than high school grads; he only did worse among postgrads.)

        Sure, if you break down groups, Romney did much better among Christian Asians (Koreans, Filipinos, etc.) than non-Christian. So that’s one thing.

      2. Are these things not true of white people? Bottom line is, Asians make more money than whites on average and use welfare at a lower rate. Or how about Jews? Again, very successful economically, considered white, but vote Democrat. Atheists and Muslims are two other groups that are pretty successful, but also vote Democrat. The only ethnic, racial, or religious minorities I can think of are Cubans and Vietnamese (due to the history of communism in their home countries), and even then that’s beginning to change in the younger generation

        1. the phrase “that vote Republican” should follow “I can think of”

        2. I’d like to see this broken down by districts. Are Asians and Jews much more Democratic than whites in LA, Bay Area, NYC, etc?

          1. I would too. From the exit polls, a majority of white Californians voted for Romney, and New York was split 49-49. However, whites in places like the Central Valley, the OC, and San Diego, are a lot more Republican than whites in the Bay Area and LA. And whites in upstate New York are a lot more conservative than whites in NYC

            1. Another thing. Compared to McCain, Romney was up with whites and down with Asians. I wonder how much of that is Arabs and South Asians calling themselves Asian instead of white.

              1. McCain had some serious votes from Vietnamese, at least in Northern Virginia. Go to Eden Center (where a big ole South Vietnamese flag flies) and you saw all sorts of McCain stickers.

    4. It shows that “free markets” cannot win even Asians. Why do you expect them to win Hispanics?

      1. LBJ’s Great Society win over Goldwater showed that “free markets” cannot even win white people.

  3. “Fucking niggers must fucking hang. Thank God for the sickle cell…”

    1. You talk the talk…

    2. Is your name a wordy form of “bitch?”

    3. As an American and believer in liberty, I support your right to believe what you want to believe, but fuck off with your racist shit.

      1. I take it you didn’t see the movie.

        1. Maybe if one is going to quote something that seems especially racist, one should include the source if one doesn’t want to seem like they are advocating the statement.

          1. *shrug*

            The dude posing as Animal Mother may be a complete racist. Or, he’s just being Ironical and stuff by quoting animal Mother. Or he’s making a joke about racism… which is how I took it.

            Who knows. That’s why I followed up with “You talk the talk” to see where he’d take it. But he didn’t bite.

            It’s probably Episiarch.

        2. NeoKitty has a point. I didn’t know it was a movie quote either. The name “Animal Mother” gave me an inkling it was, but it wasn’t until your comment that I was sure.

  4. Triumph over war and depression? Really?


    1. They’ll never be depressed again.

  5. Heard a warm report on NPR about how, you know, maybe Romney was unfairly painted as a crazy right-wing nut job, even though there’s no evidence he was… and stuff. Deep analisys.


    1. A portrait emerged of Romney as a coldhearted, severely conservative robber baron.

      And that was before the Obama campaign even lifted a finger.

      Uhh, no NPR, the Obama campaign didn’t have to lift a finger. He had the Media doing it for him.

      1. You will remember that the whole “War on Women” meme started with George Stephanopolous asking, out of the blue (but doubtless prompted by pals) about contraception.

        1. Yeah, I remember just being baffled at how that question came to be asked at the debate. Romney was shocked too, and didn’t shoot it down as quickly as he could/should have.

        2. This is BS and I’m just going to have to keep calling it out. You’d think with the amount of linking we do to sites like Jezebel that I wouldn’t have to. Stephanopoulos only asked that question because that shit was already meming hard. Not just on the internets–Rachel Maddow had already been all over it. And it’s the Republicans’ fault for taking people like Rick Santorum seriously. Mitt acted like the question was insane, but there are people in his party who push for shit like that. Plus, I think if you are going to reject the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, you need to explain why you don’t reject Griswold v. CT.

          It might have seemed weird to you guys, but it didn’t seem at all weird or surprising to me because I have seen women and progressives pushing shit like that for years. The only thing that surprised me was that Stephanopoulos asked Mitt, not Santorum.

    2. Yeah, it was remarkable how the media and the Obama campaign were able to convince people that Mitt Romney, the quintessential Massachusetts moderate, was a radical right-wing extremist. If the Republican nominee was going to get painted as an ideological kook anyways, they should have gone ahead and nominated Ron Paul

      1. What is remarkable is that NPR after pushing that lie when it mattered, comes back the day after the election and says “well maybe that wasn’t true after all.”

        Forget about Romney as a candidate. The way the media lies for the Democrats is sickening. You cannot have a republic if the entire mass media and culture is set up to lie for one side.

        1. It’s NPR. They know they probably hurt Mittens feelings and now that it doesn’t matter, this is their way of saying sorry.

        2. if the entire mass media and culture is set up to lie for one side.

          What I never want to hear about ever again, is the notion that the press is (are? Someone call Cavanaugh and get a ruling on that) the gatekeepers of Democracy.

          They’re not in any way, shape or form the gatekeepers of Democracy.

          I am the gatekeeper of democracy, you are the gatekeeper of democracy. The Press has no special role in that, and from what I’ve seen over the last decade is exactly the opposite. “It’ll help people, so we can afford to lose a little liberty to help people, right?”

        3. The media has always been that way except for a little while in the mid 20th century. It’s an excuse for losing.

          You really going to tell me that Hearst and Pulitzer had all these great objective ethics?

          1. Yeah but it used to be the media lied for money. Hearst would have sold his mother for a profit. They were not ideological just craven. Craven is fine since it affects both sides equally. Ideology is not.

            Hearst would have taken a story like Bengazi or Staten Island being destroyed by Sandy and shoved it Obama’s ass and made a mint doing so. He wouldn’t have cared. The media now ignored those stories even though they were good stories that could have made them money because covering them hurt their ideology.

            1. There were ideological papers in the old days, many of them trying to get govt printing contracts, or jobs from their editors, if their side won. There happened to be so many papers that readers could subscribe to that paper whose views he already shared. It’s getting back to that today, with the difference that a large swathe of the media indulges an infuriating pretense of impartiality – or as they put it now, of unprecedented commitment to accuracy which rejects “false balance” (giving fair coverage to the wrong side).

      2. No shit. Those moderate Rockefeller republicans sure have a great track record of getting elected president, don’t they? (eyeball roll to the ceiling)

        If the republican establishment wasn’t such a bunch of out-of-touch, elitist dim bulbs, they would have figured out by now that ANYONE they run is going to be portrayed that way by the scummy vermin whether they are or not. So why not just run the real deal?

        1. “You cannot have a republic if the entire mass media and culture is set up to lie for one side”

          I don’t think they want a republic. not in any meaningful sense.

          1. I know they don’t want one.

        2. If you listen to the audio, they have a couple of sound clips by Romney which were considered “gaffes”. ONe of them I thought, “well, maybe… I think, I guess if… well, ok I’ll take your word for it”.

          The other sound bite, I literally had no idea what the gaffe was. So I guess there must have been some context.

          No sound bite of Biden telling the nation how badly Americans have suffered over the last four years.

      3. Exactly. Obama still would have been our president, but we’d have gotten a small government message out, simmering in people’s brains. A whole campaign whose sole focus was liberty and freedom. Then after Obama’s second term (Bush’s fourth) people might have looked back on RP and wonder what might have been.

        1. I’ve already got my “Don’t Blame Me; I voted for Ron Paul & Gary Johnson” sign in my rear car window.

    3. That link doesn’t work.

  6. Life in the guilded cage is sweet — Vote Obama!

    1. The prison warden has promised 100% employment and 5 minute showers!

      1. And the massuh in the Big House’s is givin’ us a right nice shack to live in and every other Sunday off.

  7. Emily is smart. And libertarian. And pretty. She’s the perfect woman.

    1. Emily is smart. And libertarian. And pretty. She’s the perfect woman.

      Nope, sorry, the perfect woman would be in love with me. She’s not, so strike one.
      And she’s blonde, strike two, the perfect woman would have red hair.
      She probably likes country music, and that would be a third strike.

      Not that I’m picky or anything…

      1. And I bet Emily can’t shoot worth a lick and to my knowledge she doesn’t own a boat, a beach house, or a motorcycle. So much for her being perfect.

        1. Good voice, projection and enunciation, though!

          1. She is lovely, just not perfect. But who of us is?

        2. Shooting isn’t an issue. I’ve trained plenty of soldiers who were terrible shots to at least be competent if not pretty decent.

          1. True. But the perfect woman owns a beach house and a large boat.

            1. When I was a teen-aged boy, my father told me that I should marry a nymphomaniac that owned a liquor store. He said that I wouldn’t have to work for my money, and I would always have something to keep me busy.

          2. When I was fulfilling the range requirement for the Chi handgun permit, I was the only woman in our class, and the instructor noted that in almost all his classes it was women who did the best because they listen to how he tells them to hold the gun and shit, not like dudes who think they already know what they’re doing. So it should be easy to work with at least.

            1. I’ve heard the same thing from Drill Sergeants.

            2. I experienced the opposite in the Army as a marksmanship instructor. I did the remedial retraining for anyone who bolo’d their weapons qual. I ended up needing to retrain most of the females in the unit repeatedly, and they tended to improve the least. Although the absolute worst shot I have ever seen was a former Navy guy who went blue to green. He was untrainable. Apparently (according to him), they don’t do any kind weapons training in Navy basic. This kid never would have graduated from Army basic. I think he was eventually kicked out because he couldn’t qualify with a rifle.

              1. I was surprised myself–maybe he was just trying to make the guys there feel better.

              2. To be honest, the only thing I remember is “females were better at something involving guns.” Maybe it was something not related to marksmanship.

        3. Also, she’s married.

    2. Blonde, white women bore me, but she is cute.

    3. She says “Caucasian” though. That’s nearly a deal breaker.

      1. What about in reference to people from Caucasia?

        1. I don’t won’t to be lumped in with those filthy bastards.

  8. “each of us will pursue our own individual dreams”

    Took him what, 30 seconds, to tell another soothing lie?

  9. The weights in each pan of the balance had increased greatly. As he approached is triumph, our foe had made himself vulnerable. We were unable to directly influence, and could only watch and wait to see whether his pridefully chosen pawn would prove his undoing.

  10. Why is the polariz’n by group extraordinarily sad? I had been saying for a year that Obama was by then extremely polarizing to voters, but I wasn’t thinking of it on a group basis like this, and I find this very interesting, but neither happy nor sad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.