I've noticed something quite obvious. Many people vote against their own economic and or security interests. You might have rich Hollywood celebrities in California or rich Wall Street folks in New York. They would seem to fit the bill for a typical "rich Republican" voter. Yet they are overwhelmingly liberal due to social issues. Same is true with blue collar working class people in Indiana or Kentucky or Mississippi. They might well benefit quite well from liberal Democratic programs, yet they vote overwhelmingly Republican due to social issues.
You also might have people who vote based on emotion and social issues, solely. For example, a 30 year old female small business owner who hates the IRS, is pro-death penalty, and overwhelmingly pro-Military might be a typical Republican voter, but she'll vote Democratic out of concern for political rhetoric. Almost like the ultimate litmus test voting.
Look at the 2012 exit polls:
http://pos.org/2012/11/the-new-electoral-math-and-what-it-means-for-polling/Best vision for America's future -
RomneyBest values for America's future -
RomneyStrongest leadership for America -
RomneyBest for the economy -
RomneyCares about people like me - Obama
Now doesn't that look like a decisive Mitt Romney victory? But that single category. Caring about me...overruled everything. Everything about healthcare, the economy, security, ect. This seems rather new to me. I highly doubt we heard people say, "Well I agree with Humphrey but Nixon cares about people like me".
It leads me to an interesting discussion topic. Do people in America only vote now based upon empathy and emotion? In other words, do we who have grown up following politics now have to look through a whole different perspective?
OR a bit more controversial school of thought. Men in general, particularly white men, tend to be way more analytical rather than empathetic and emotional. Hence you used to get the swings. "Yeah sure, Joe...I'll vote for Jimmy" then just four years later, "He ain't doing it well enough, time for Reagan."
Men pretty much did the same thing in 1996 and 2012...it was well documented that both Clinton and Obama would have won with only men in their first elections but then both would have lost their re-elections. So is it that there are just more empathetic minorities voting off-setting the classic electoral trends. Hence why leaders like Obama win elections that men like Carter '80 and Bush '92 lost?
