Skip to main content

In the "secret" video Romney says the following:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Got that? Obama's voters are all a bunch of poor leaches. Or to frame it correctly, Romney is saying that all poor leaches are Obama voters.

Romeny and his defenders are saying, "Hey! Romney got the facts right! 47% of the population doesn't pay [federal] income taxes!"

It might might be true that 47% of the population doesn't pay income taxes, but hardly all of them are Obama voters. In fact, most of the poor don't vote anyway. It's really a lesson we all learned in poli sci (except Romney and his defenders, apparently). Let's set aside that a large chunk of the 47% are seniors on Social Security. And, further, let's set aside that most seniors voted against Obama in 2008 and against the Democrats in 2010. Let's just consider the portion of the population that might be too poor to pay federal income taxes.

First, 25% of those making under $15,000 a year voted for McCain. But guess what? Those making under $15,000 only account for 6% of the electorate in 2008.

Those making between $15,000 and $30,000 also voted for Obama, but by a narrower margin: 60% for Obama and 37% for McCain. This income group made up a whopping 12% of the electorate in 2008. That means that those making under $30,000 in 2008 combined to make up a total of 18% of the electorate.

But wait! There's more! What if we included those with incomes up to 50,000 a year as belonging to Mr Romney's "47%"? Well, those making 30-50,000 also went for Obama by 55-43% margin. They made up 19% of the 2008 electorate. The total percent of voters who made less than $50,000 was 38% --- and 38% of them voted for Mr McCain.

But wait! There's more! When we combine race and income we find out that income based voting is largely a factor of race more than income. For example, 51% of whites who made under $50,000 voted for McCain. Whereas minorities who made under $50k voted overwhelmingly for Obama, consistent with minority voting patterns at all income groups.

But wait! There's more! What about voters in Mr Romney's 53%? Those who made more than $50,000? They were perfectly spilt 49% went for Obama and 49% went for McCain.

But... yeh, there's more... what about the wealthiest voters? What about the very voters Romney attempts to appeal to with his class warfare rhetoric? You know, those who make more than $200,000? In 2008, they were overwhelmingly for Obama 52-46 percent.

These facts aren't hidden secret things. They are right there for all of us to see. Anyone who has been to an intro course in Poli-Sci understands that poor voters are far less likely to vote because they are less likely to believe their interests will be taken care of by the leading candidates. It is also a well known trend that voters on government assistance don't always vote their interests, and when it comes to southern poor whites and white seniors, they almost never vote their economic interests. Romney's comments can only mean one of two things: he's completely ignorant of this reality or he's a liar. We already know that he lies through his teeth, so I'll go with liar.

[Source: CNN 2008 National Election Polls]

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site