Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Last White President?

Could George W.Bush become the last US White President?

I pose this question as a UK resident, who's understanding of
the American voteing system, admittedly, is sadly lacking.
I realise the parties have to get thru a very tough and difficult
obstacle course before and during their nomination.
I'm assuming that Obama will be voted in as the first US Black President in November.

But my simplistic view of the American voting system is telling me that irrespective of the 35 States, the Primaries, the Caucuses, or the Superdelegates, he will become President only because of the numbers of black voters, and only the black voters, that voted for him.

My slanted vision is also telling me that, since the black population, (and even the Mexicans) for that matter, have the highest birth rate in proportion to the rest of the US.
So???
It could mean that George W. Bush would have the distinct honour of being the last US white President to ever hold Office!

Blacks are something like 10% of the total electorate, but a much larger percentage of the Democratic party (who are the main voters in the primaries so far). The other major party, the Republicans, has not been very successful in getting much black support since the 1960s. The Republican weakness is driven by a combination of strong Democratic support for civil rights laws (that's a simplistic statement, some southern democrats were very hostile to these, but is overall true) and sympathy to social programs, plus a conscious decision by Republicans, starting with Richard Nixon, to court white voters by playing to resentment and fear of blacks by pushing tough-on-crime, abuses of social welfare systems, and resentment of civil rights laws (look up the Wikipedia article on "Southern Strategy" to read more about this).

In the general election, the percentage of black voters is much lower, and Obama may have a much tougher time. There appear to be a lot of white voters who otherwise would support him, but who will oppose him simply because he is black. And Obama hasn't done well with Hispanic voters, who as you pointed out are one of the fastest-growing sectors of the electorate. I'm not convinced Obama will win the general election, though it is a definite possibility.

The Democratic primary also appears to have "activated" a strong segment of feminist voters who may well try to push a female candidate in the future, whether Hillary or someone else.

I'd say it is wide open, but will definitely be more diverse in the future instead of 100% white male. But white males (of which I am one!) aren't finished by any means. I'd be willing to bet that for at least the next fifty years, there will be more white males elected president than all other demographic categories put together, even if we do end up with two Obama terms to start it out.

For truth-in-advertising, I'll mention that I am a white male Republican-turned-Democrat-about-ten-years-ago, and Obama supporter, but I think the above analysis is a reasonably neutral one.

Thanks MikeBinOK,
I am grateful for your comments on the American voting system. As you say I am sure your analysis is a reasonably neutral one, and much appreciated this 'side of the pond'.

I would like to make one important point.
There is the definate possibility that the Blacks will vote on every occassion possible, from now on and into the future. Obama has made them realise they can wield the reins of change.
Their 'awakening' will make a very big difference.......because in the past there were large numbers of older Black voters who virtualy felt themselves as 2nd class citizens. They did'nt bother to vote, either because they did'nt care, or check to see whether they were on the electoral system or not. Most felt that their vote counted for little. That wont happen ever again.
Plus modern young Black teenagers are a different breed,...even over here.
These 'winds of change' should make all parties and ethnic groups realise the importance of voting the next time.

I might add, I was living in Pennsylvania, when the National Guard was used to help integrate the schools, when just one or prehaps two, black children needing protection were escorted into class daily.

Mike,

I wouldn't bet any money yet if I were you. Let me remind you, the pickins were not very good. Neither candidate is qualified for the job. It is pathetic that the Democrats did not have better candidate, which tells you a lot of the Democrat Party now. I must admit I am not excited about McCain, but as they say you pick the lesser of two evils. And I think this election should earmarked that way.

Hillary and Obama were it in the race. The Democrats had to vote for someone. They were big fish in a little pond. I know a lot of Democrats that will vote a Republican ticket in the General election. Many did not even vote in the primary in my area because they didn't like the choice. I know yellow dog Democrats that said they will not vote at all. And sure, the blacks are going to vote for Obama. The general election is going to be a different election. He could win, but there are some factors in the general election that could be his downfall.
The religious right, patriotic americans that don't want a president that will not salute the flag, and some of his promises concerning social programs. We are social programmed to death, and while a national health care system sounds good it comes with a price tag. I ran for public office here and I know how much money is spent on health care in the county I live in, I won't go into it but a lot of that is hype.

Some college students will support him because they don't know what the real world is. Mom and Dad pay the bills or they get financial aid, it comes in the mail they don't have to punch a clock or sign notes at the bank to stay in business. Blacks are going go vote for him because he is black. Some people don't know what to vote for except for "change".

They will get change, because after they pay for all the promises he has made if they materialize,all they will have left out of their checks will be change. I know, I live here. It would have been the same scenerio with Hillary.

best regards,
odin1

Odin- I think that Mike may agree with me when I say that I cannot imagine not having a National Health Service. Ours certainly isn't perfect, and it requires a tax levy from working people, but if you are ill, have an emergency medical situation, or need everyday medical attention it is available and it is either free or heavily subsidised. I would have thought that this would be a huge vote winner, but you say not. Why is this so?

The voter turn-out is always so low in the States. Who knows, maybe this time Obama will inspire enough people to use theirs to elect him!

Hello Ellis,

Good to hear from you.

I didn't say it would not be welcomed by many voters, but the problem is this Ellis. A lot of Americans have health insurance, some don't. Now, in the county I live in we have medicade, all counties have it but the cost differs to the taxpayers form county to county and from state to state. One third of our property tax dollar goes to medicade, in the county I live in our annual cost for medicade is $6,000,000.00 that is for a county with only 52000 people. Ellis if you get sick, or hurt in the United States you get medical attention. Even the illegal immigrants from Mexico get health care.

All government employees get health coverage. Most large companies give health care benefits and small companies. I'm self employed my company pays for mine. And make no mistake, it is high. Our problem is the "cost" of health care. Nothing is done to regulate what doctors and hospitals can charge you. They are literally stealing from the government now. They milk medicade and medicare.

I don't know if I have told you before but a few years ago and I feel it is the same now if not worse, for every dollar collected for social programs on .17 gets to the needy, the other .83 goes to administration. A lot of waste Ellis, and this drives cost higher. Hillary Clinton outlined a health care plan when her hubby was President, it was a disaster looking for a place to happen. The burocracy was herific, and the taxes needed to fund the program on small business would have put most small business out of business. Her reply to a reporter as I recall was "I can't help it if some business's are under capitalized" Ellis, we can't afford universal health care, I am glad Australia has a good plan and have the politicians to be "sensible" about it, but here in the States now it won't work. Like I said the real problem is what doctors and hosptals charge, it is ridiculous. The fact that a lot is paid by the government has made the health care system in this country inflationary. I think I may have mentioned to you before in a post several weeks back, things are a little different here in the states than in Australia and Europe now, we have our own unique problems and it makes a difference in solving them.

The concept is good, the plan is bad. Ellis it is like your car running out of petro and you put air in the tires to fix it, it won't work. Didn't mean to write a book Ellis, I hope I answered your question, I have a tendancy to ramble sometimes.

best regards,
odin1

I long believed we wouldn't get "universal health care" for a long time if ever in the US, but I think it is likely to happen after this election. The problem is that there isn't enough money available to go 'round to give the best to everyone. As things stand, we in the US tend to give the fortunate the best of everything, with little reason not to insist on the best, and to leave the less fortunate with nothing, until they get in a catastrophic situation, when they too get the best of everything, and we will spend a huge amount of money to fix a problem that often could have been avoided by spending a small amount of money on preventive care.

Pretty much everyone agrees in theory that it is smarter to provide that basic preventative care to everyone, but there is strong opposition to doing it in a "universal health care" system, partly funded by companies that profit greatly off the present system, and partly driven by people who sincerely believe that having the government do this would be wasteful or even morally wrong. Even most of those people are in favor of providing something along those lines, but insist on doing it through a privately-owned system, details of which are a mess to work out.

The biggest obstacle to a universal health care system probably isn't the groups I just mentioned, but the realization that it means that even the people who are now privileged to own insurance and have free access to the best care in all circumstances will have to accept health care rationing even for themselves. When that sinks in, many members of the middle class and upper middle class who are in favor of the system on principle will oppose it because they're the ones who might get diddled. I have sympathies that way myself, even though I am largely hostile to the large profit-driven companies that provide most health care to us now!

Democracy makes for messy results and difficult and inefficient pathways, doesn't it?

Hello MikeBinOk,

I don't disagree with the concept of universal health care, and I understand what you are saying. We talk oranges and use apples to make the juice. You know yourself if you have ever been to a hospital how they charge, it is ridiculous. And it is primarily because 1) noboby asks questions 2)insurance payment and government payments. Let me tell you a story.

My brother a few years ago had no insurance. He cut his hand open with a skill saw. He went to a surgeons office and the surgeon did it as outpatient. As he was working on my brother, my brother asked him what this was going to cost--because he had no insurance. the surgeon looked it up in a book he had and said
it will cost you $400.00. If you had insurance it would cost $1200.00. You see this is 80% of the problem.

A lot of Americans want universal health care because the think they can quite paying for health care and have a freebee. Mike you and I both know there ain't no free lunch. You will pay for it one way or another and if you think we have a bueocracy now in social programs--you wait till you get the health care plan.
I know of no one that is denied health care. Don't you folks have problems in OK with illegal mexicans straining the system?
I know they do in California. How is universal health care going to fix that, it still has to be paid for?

I think they need to regulate the health industry, hell they regulate everyone else, why not them? Get the insurance companies in check, and modify the present medicade and medicare programs. Please don't take me wrong Mike I'm don't mean this in a derogatory way, I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. We can both agree, it is a problem that needs fixing and I am with you, lets fix it, but lets fix the problem.

Thanks for you post Mike.

best regards,
odin1

It is possible that George Bush will be our last white president if civilization as we know it does end on December 21, 2012 as it was predicted, but it is also possible that our next president will be John McCain. I feel that unless Senator Obama starts to better lay out his plans to create a better future for America, many of the Americans who now support him will migrate over to Senator McCain's camp, for one of two reasons. The first is that Senator McCain is already spouting out a fairly detailed plan of how he plans to run this country, and the second is I fear that many Americans while they profess to not be racist, they in my opinion probably will vote with a fairly bigoted conscience and vote for Senator McCain thinking he is change enough. There is one factor which I cannot pin down and cannot decide if it will hurt or help Senator McCain’s prospects at becoming our next President. That factor is that still many Republican faithful still do not totally trust Senator McCain and some of those whom I talked to are honestly thinking of writing in a name rather than voting for either of the candidates, and the reason I cannot pin down whether this will hurt Senator McCain is that while he may not get all of the Republican votes, the fact that he makes so many Republicans nervous might actually get him some nervous Democratic votes.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/215hpooz.asp?pg=1

I've speculated that Obama would lose because of racism among many whites. This is an interesting article that suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that many whites resent Obama because of his worldview, not because of his skin color. I find many of the ideas convincing, though I still think there is probably a substantial minority of whites who just reject the idea of a black candidate out of hand.

how would Bush be the last white President? That is an illogical abusrdity. Perhaps in the future, whites will be less in America as new nationalities grow, but by no means will they ever be so much a minority as to not have a white president elected. Obama (if elected) will be an anamoly; to the present, and most likely (fortunately or unfortunately) to the future.

Hopefully Mr Bush will not be the last white president because, just as now Mr Obama is seen as the best by many, a time may come when the colour of the person's skin (or gender) is of less importance than their politics. Thus the best person may be a white woman, a black man, a hispanic woman, an asian man, or even a white man-- and the one with the most dynamic, positive plan for the future wins!!

Now that's a good aim for the future.

It really is only a window dressing, who or what color the who is. All is a distraction from those who really wield the influence of power. The American voter is given the illusion of picking the best person for the job, but that person is still going to be a sock puppet for special interests, or end up dead.

A little humor:

Everyone concentrates on the problems we're having in this country lately: illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking people in Florida.

Not me. I concentrate on solutions for the problems. It's a win-win situation .

+ Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.

+ Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levies .

+ Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.

Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? Yes!

Think about this one:

1. Cows
2..The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments



C O W S

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.


T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.


T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, and Thou Shall Not Lie in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.

I nearly replied to ask if it really is only window dressing too.

I find it REALLY hard to believe that Mr McCain could be as popular as Mr Obama or that no other more 'presidential' candidate could be found instead of him! But, as a Republican, he is replacing Mr Bush which does tend to put it into perspective.

I like Mike's Clintons suggestion. But we both know it will never happen.

It seems to me that the complicated voting systems tend to produce stereotypical candidates, and tend to disadvantage candidates that have differences from the norm. Choosing between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama is a worry! Choosing between either of them and John McCain is much easier. Go for the old white guy of course. Times are uneasy now, so it seems to make sense to go for the comfortable candidate and continue the status quo.

Then there is the problem of the disenfranchised, and there seem to be so many ways to get disenfranchised! Also fewer people are choosing to vote and the number who turn up on the day is a pitiful percentage of the eligible population. Voting seems not to be seen as a right and privilege which others countries are still literally dying for, but as a nuisance thing to do that it has no effect, and interrupts more important things.

As a PS--- I loved the new commandments--especially the COW one! There's always a solution.

And I probably need to say that, like Mike, I am observing from afar where it is easy to be dispassionate, and the above is, of course, only my opinion!

I think the reason people don't vote is because they don't know who to vote for. If you were to watch the mudslinging that takes place between candidates you would seriously wonder if people with such an infantile disposition should really act in the interests of the people. The media floods the American people with so much garbage, and with people worrying more about survival with food, gasoline and housing becoming less available to them at a decent cost,they spin in a media haze of disinformation rather than truth.
You can watch government representatives argue with the oil companies about why they take their immense profits and put them into futures to make the stockholders even wealthier than they are and see they have no real power to make any changes. If they did they would.
Here is a statement of affairs made by Ex CEO of the Chrysler Corp. Lee Iacoca:
Where have all the Leaders Gone?

Let's vote for Lee Iacoca for president. He'd be better than Bush-McCain any day!

TT That was a very informative article by Iacoca. Forgive my huge ignorance but I recognise the name but cannot remember in what context. He has a nice clear way of giving his point of view and I agree with Rose!

I don't want to bang on about Australia, and I actually am not wholly in favour of our method of ensuring as many as possible vote, but you stated people do not know who to vote for. Here we have to vote, and disenfranchisement is very rare, so we all vote or are fined. (Actually we have to go to the voting booth and be handed a Ballot Paper and have our name ticked off.... Or we are fined.) So everyone votes, because since you are there you may as well have a go! There is something like 97% compliance of those on the electoral roll! And when you know you HAVE to make up your mind you do!

Last election the sitting Prime Minister lost his seat---that's only the second time ever--- but the voters got rid of him, and convincingly too. It was a stunning result, and not really expected. Maybe it was an example of the power of the people, but it can only work if and when people exercise it.

I made reference to his being the ex CEO of the Chrysler Corp. Here in the U.S. Chrysler was one of the top 3 Automobile manufacturers in the United States..(Ford GM & Chrysler)

I'm not sure if the American Republic would accept mandatory voting but it sounds like an interesting idea. Actually everyone should feel obligated in some respect to take part in the political process of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (The right to make a living as it suits one without taking away from anothers rights and freedoms).
The problem with the American Media is that they are less interested in truth or facts as they are in dramatization and ratings. Our media has dropped its level of values to become tabloid like in their representation of the news.

When I said the president was more of a sock puppet than a figure of power I should also mention that the media is bought and paid for as well making our political system not so much representative of the people but representative of beliefs and media scripture.
The American public has given great authority to the media for its information regardless of its accuracy. There is a greater potential for truth in public broadcasting or public radio which is a subscriber based news network rather than corporation bought media which plays our news like they play commercials for deoderant and male enhancement products. Priorities don't you know.
As Iococca stated, "While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions."

Perhaps if they don't shoot him before he has a chance to make any changes in the system, Obama might be just the thing to initiate a change from the arrogance and complacency of the American people and the deteriorating illusion of political representation of a disenchanted American public.
Or he might just be another distraction to give false hope to the hypnosis that has been created by the current administration and the brain dead media by the money that really runs the country.