LAS ELECIONES USA EN NUMEROS

US 2012 ELECTIONS RESULTS

HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTE IN THE AVERAGE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Answer:

In 2004, there were about 216 million people in the US who were able to vote. Out of these people, only about 126 million actually voted. (58%) The 2004 elections had the largest percentage of people who voted since 1968. In 2012 only 118,732,525. That is 8Mll less.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_vote_in_the_average_US_presidential_election

2012	Obama	Romney
Total	60,812,123	57,920,402
Percent	50.4%	48.0%

TOTAL adding both in 2012: 118,732,525           SO: 8Mlln less voters in 2012                                              

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/voter-id-lawsminorities_n_1878893.html

Karl Rove is right: Rove argued that Obama won with a smaller popular vote and a smaller margin of victory than in the 2008 election against Sen. John McCain.

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/rove-obama-succeeded-by-suppressing-the-vote-149046.html

 

------------------  

LATINO VOTES: D: 71%     R:27  the rest went to minority parties: 2%

GOP or Republicans lose

In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics. Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html?hp=t2_3

 

“Look no further than Florida, that reliable battleground that usually picks White House winners. Obama won there by only 2½ percentage points in 2008, but somehow found a way to eke out a narrow lead again in the face of 8.7 percent unemployment there.

Why? Partly because there are 190,000 more Hispanics and 50,000 more African-Americans in the state than there were in 2008.

Florida Republicans were staggered: Obama managed to actually increase a 20-point margin from 2008 in suburban Orlando’s Osceola County, home to thousands of Hispanic immigrants, to 25 points.

“Hispanics continue to grow in importance, and we need to embrace these voters for two reasons: It is simply the right thing to do, and it’s mandatory demographically if we are to avoid more presidential disappointments,” said former George W. Bush political director Matt Schlapp. “It’s about simple math and basic moral decency.”  Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html#ixzz2BfRczdkr

 

---------------------------  

FEMALE YOUTH decided the Presidential election

Youth vote decides presidential election – again. The youth vote proved decisive in Tuesday's presidential election, just as it did in 2008. But this year, it was a far greater surprise. By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, Staff writer / November 7, 2012 

People age 18 to 29 made up 19 percent of voters in this election cycle, up 1 percentage point from 2008, according to early National Exit Poll (NEP) data.

President Obama won this age group with 60 percent support, versus 37 percent for Mitt Romney.  Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/1107/Youth-vote-decides-presidential-election-again.-Is-this-the-new-normal

 

In California, online registration and ballot initiatives of interest to young people may help explain why young people, who make up just under 24 percent of the population, were actually 28 percent of the voters, CIRCLE's Mr. Levine said.

The overwhelming support for Obama among African-American and Latino voters also overlaps with the youth vote. Among under-30 voters in those groups, 91 percent and 72 percent, respectively, voted for Obama, according to CIRCLE.  Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/1107/Youth-vote-decides-presidential-election-again.-Is-this-the-new-normal

 

------------------------------

Live Election Results

	Obama	Romney
Electoral Votes (270 to win)	303	206

Battleground States

	Obama	Romney
Virginia 99% Rpt.	50.8%	47.8%
Florida 100% Rpt.	49.9%	49.3%
N. Carolina 100% Rpt.	48.4%	50.6% Only 1 swing  state x GOP
Ohio 100% Rpt.	50.1%	48.2%
New Hampshire 100% Rpt.	52.2%	46.4%
Colorado 100% Rpt.	51.2%	46.5%
Wisconsin 99% Rpt.	52.8%	46.1%
Iowa 100% Rpt.	52.1%	46.5%
Nevada 100% Rpt.	52.3%	45.7%

POPULAR VOTE

	Obama	Romney
Total	60,812,123	57,920,402
Percent	50.4%	48.0%

TOTAL adding both in 2012: 118,732,525                                                         

Senate

33 out of 100 seats are up for election. 51 are needed for a majority.

	Democrats*	Republicans
Current Senate	53	47
Seats gained or lost	+2	-2
New Total	55	45

* Includes two independent senators expected to caucus with the Democrats: Angus King (Maine) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

House

All 435 seats are up for election. 218 are needed for a majority.

	Democrats	Republicans
Seats won	195	234

SOURCE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/voter-id-laws-minorities_n_1878893.html

---------------------- 

SEE ALSO:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20009195

=============================   

 

OBAMA: MALO PERO NO EL PEOR

OBAMA: MALO PERO NO EL PEOR

Atilio Borón

Rebelión:  http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=158855

Escasamente la mitad de la población mayor de 18 años (lejos del record de la elección de John F. Kennedy, en 1960: 62.8 por ciento) se acercó el martes a las máquinas de votar para enfrentar un cruel dilema: ¿a quién elegir? Haciendo a un lado la retórica de ambos candidatos y las inverosímiles promesas reiteradas por sus comandos de campaña la elección era entre el malo y el peor. El malo porque, como lo demuestran fehacientemente las estadísticas oficiales, la situación de los asalariados que constituyen la vasta mayoría de la población de Estados Unidos no sólo no mejoró sino que, por comparación con sus conciudadanos más ricos, se empeoró sensiblemente.

Un ejemplo basta y sobra: según la Oficina del Censo en el 2010 el ingreso de una familia promedio fue de 49.445 dólares, o sea, un 7.1 por ciento debajo de la cifra de 1999. Y, debido a la profundización de la crisis económica general, en los dos años posteriores esta tendencia lejos de revertirse se acentuó. Si tal como lo hicieran en generaciones anteriores esa familia quisiera enviar a uno de sus dos hijos a cursar una maestría, por ejemplo, en la Harvard Kennedy School , debería afrontar un costo total (matrícula más seguro médico, más alojamiento y alimentación) de 70.802 dólares anuales, lo que explica el fenomenal endeudamiento de la familia tipo en los Estados Unidos y el hecho de que cada vez queden menos estudiantes norteamericanos en las universidades de élite de ese país.

Pero aquel promedio es engañoso, porque la familia tipo afroamericana tiene, según el mismo organismo oficial, un ingreso medio de 32.068 dólares, y los latinos de 37.595. Si unos y otros esperaban más de un presidente afroamericano sus esperanzas se desvanecieron durante el primer turno de Obama. Por eso decimos que eligieron al malo que rescató bancos, fondos de inversión y grandes oligopolios -cuyos CEOs siguieron cobrando decenas de millones de dólares al año por sueldos, premios, compensaciones, bonos y otras triquiñuelas por el estilo- mientras que el salario por hora de los trabajadores permanecía, ajustado por inflación, en los niveles de finales de la década de los setentas. En términos prácticos: ¡más de treinta años sin un aumento efectivo de la remuneración horaria!

Ni hablemos de otras acciones del insólito Premio Nobel de la Paz, tales como escalar hasta lo inimaginable la política pergeñada por George W. Bush de asesinatos selectivos mediante la utilización de drones (en países con los cuales Estados Unidos ni siquiera está en guerra, como Paquistán, Palestina y Yemen); el vil linchamiento de Khadafi; el mafioso asesinato de Osama bin Laden frente a su familia, al estilo de la masacre perpetrada por Al Capone y sus muchachos la noche de Saint Valentine de 1929 en Chicago; el desenfreno del espionaje interno y externo y la intercepción de correos, mensajes de texto y telefonemas sin ninguna orden judicial denunciada por la American Civil Liberties Union entre otras bellezas por el estilo.

Pero si Obama era la opción mala, Romney era mucho peor. El primero es un representante del capital, pero el segundo es el capital, y en sus versiones más degradadas y fascinerosas. Sus vinculaciones con los fondos buitres, entre ello uno que acosa a la Argentina, son bien conocidas; su absoluto desprecio por la suerte de los trabajadores de su país fueron inocultables. Fulminó con una crítica racista y clasista al 47 porciento de la población que “no paga impuestos” y cree que el gobierno debe ofrecerle gratis salud, educación, vivienda y comida. Este comentario, tan absurdo como incorrecto, empíricamente hablando, fue agravado por Paul Ryan, su candidato a vicepresidente impuesto por el Tea Party. En su delirio reaccionario Ryan llegó a decir que la “red de seguridad social” que hay en Estados Unidos se había convertido en una cómoda hamaca en donde los pobres dormían una plácida siesta confiados en que el Big Government vendría a satisfacer sus necesidades.

Como si lo anterior no fuera suficiente Romney se encargó de decir que reduciría aún más el impuesto a los ricos (pese a que varios de ellos, como el multimillonario Warren Buffet, confesaron que era ridículo e inmoral pagar, en proporción, menos impuestos que sus empleados) y que apoyaría sin titubeos a las fuerzas del mercado, al paso que hizo reiteradas declaraciones que evidenciaban un desbordante belicismo en el plano internacional. Rusia fue caracterizada como “enemigo número 1” de Estados Unidos, insinuó que lanzaría una guerra comercial con China (lo que hubiera provocado una verdadera debacle en su país) y amenazaba con promover acciones militares más enérgicas contra Irán, Siria, Cuba y Venezuela. En fin, lo que se dice un verdadero monstruo político ante lo cual el reticente electorado norteamericano optó, si bien a regañadientes, por el malo, convencido de que el otro representaba lo peor en su forma químicamente pura.

Rebelión ha publicado este artículo con el permiso del autor mediante una licencia de Creative Commons, respetando su libertad para publicarlo en otras fuentes.

======================  

ZIONIST in ISRAEL CONIDERED OBAMA AN UGLY VICTORY

OBAMA’S VICTORY SHOCKS ISRAEL: PANIC IN JERUSALEM: ITS LARGEST NEWSPAPER CALLS “AN UGLY VICTORY”: ATTACK IRAN DELAYED?

The 4th Media | Thursday, November 8, 2012

http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/11/08/obama%E2%80%99s-victory-shocks-israel-yedioth-aharonot-%E2%80%9Can-ugly-victory%E2%80%9D/

Emphasizing the wild reaction of the Hebrew media and Israel’s upper echelon of politicians to Obama’s victory, Mossad opened on the same day a recruiting campaign over the internet.

Its ads appeared next to pictures illustrating the victory, creating an eerie image. IS MOSSAD ABOUT TO GEAR UP SINISTER OLD PLANS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSINATION? Beginning this article in such a fashion is justifiable due to the violent reactions voiced in Israel.

One of the softest belonged to Yedioth Aharonot—Israel’s largest newspaper—which read “An Ugly Victory.” The most quoted reaction belonged to Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon, who said “the State of Israel will not surrender to Obama. We have no one to rely on but ourselves.”


This was the unsuccesful end of Netanyahu’s open campaign for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The support included a well-advertised visit to Jerusalem, supporting articles in the Israeli and Jewish media, the disclosure of their old personal friendship which dates back to 1976 (see Romney, Obama, and the Israeli Vote), and the inclusion of Netanyahu in Romney’s adds.

Moreover, THE MAIN FINANCIAL SUPPORTER OF NETANYAHU IS SHELDON ADELSON, an American Jew who is among America’s richest men, his businesses are centered on the CHINESE GAMBLING INDUSTRY. He openly ENDORSED ROMNEY AND CONTRIBUTED AT LEAST $40 MILLION TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN.

This unusual intervention in other country’s elections was aimed at placing in the White House a president that will be more receptive to Israel’s plans to attack Iran (see Romney’s Key in Israeli Attack on Iran).

On August 30, 2012, the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report on the nuclear program of Iran. The report claims that Iran is speeding up its uranium enrichment program, having placed more than three quarters of the centrifuges it needs for completing it in a practically impenetrable underground installation, beneath a mountain outside Qum.

This means that Iran is close to crossing what Israel had defined as its red line: the capability to produce nuclear weapons in a safe location. WITH OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE, ISRAEL’S BELLIGERENCY IS LIKELY TO BE BLOCKED.

Netanyahu’s campaign was more successful at home. ISRAELI CHANNEL 2 PERFORMED A POLL JUST BEFORE THE ELECTIONS IN THE USA; 50% OF ALL ISRAELIS BACKED ROMNEY, VERSUS 26% FOR OBAMA.

A similar poll conducted by the ultra-Orthodox Channel 10 showed that 50% of secular Jews favored Obama, and 50% Romney; however, religious Jews favored Romney, giving him 85% of their voices. Unluckily for Romney, neither group could vote in the USA.

PANIC IN JERUSALEM

The reason why abovementioned Danny Danon became the main politician quoted on the issue despite his relative obscurity was that Netanyahu panicked after the first reactions were published.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Chairman of Shas Party, said “This is probably not a very good morning for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” The reason for this statement is clear; if until NOW THE RELATIONS BETWEEN NETANYAHU AND OBAMA WERE NOT PARTICULARLY FRIENDLY, FROM NOW ONWARDS, NETANYAHU CAN COUNT ON OPEN HOSTILITY.

Netanyahu was fast to react, ordering all of his party’s ministers and Knesset members to avoid commenting on Obama’s re-election without coordinating their statements with the Prime Minister’s Bureau. “DON’T TALK ABOUT OBAMA,” NETANYAHU WAS QUOTED BY LOCAL MEDIA.

In parallel, a witch hunt begun among American Jewry. the picture above was taken from the settler Channel 7. It shows the abovementioned Mossad ad next to the main reaction of the channel to the elections.

Mossad Recruiting Ad: “Anger in the USA on Rabbis who supported Obama”

The headline reads “ANGER IN THE USA ON RABBIS WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA.” The article brings an analysis of David Badin (English spelling may vary), director of a news agency and of a political research center active in Boston and Jerusalem.

He explains how his organizations approached hundreds of rabbis all over the US, trying to CONVINCE THEM TO ENDORSE ROMNEY AND TO “TEACH HOW MUCH OBAMA IS DANGEROUS TO ISRAEL, this would have change the picture, and Romney would have won.” He claims that the rabbis could have changed the situation in several key states.

He ends his analysis claiming that if these American Jews “put tfilin (while praying), pray three times a day (in weekdays), but vote Obama, there are serious questions on their ways.” He continues “there was here a president who made terrible things. He put anti-Semites in senior positions.

He supported Islam… All this must force us to consider the relations between religious-Jews in Israel and America, and why there is such a disconnection between them.” This is the closest thing to a formal statement of the settlers on their position. It is unlikely they will find any sympathy in Obama’s next term.

NETANYAHU IS UNDER SERIOUS POLITICAL PRESSURE, DUE TO THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS ON JANUARY 22, 2013. HE IS FACING SERIOUS SOCIAL PROTESTS AT HOME AND NEEDS A WAR TO DISTRACT THE ELECTORATE. IT ALWAYS WORKS.

A war with Iran is not possible right now. Yet, Obama’s victory may have provided him with a poorman’s war. Danny Danon’s statement opening this article was not random, and probably was coordinated with Netanyahu.

FROM NOW UNTIL THE ELECTIONS NETANYAHU WILL CLAIM THAT THE USA HAS BECOME UNFRIENDLY AND THUS THE PEOPLE MUST UNIFY AND BRACE THEMSELVES FOR HARD TIMES. A WORDS’ WAR WITH AMERICA IS ALMOST AS GOOD AS ONE WITH IRAN.

 ----------------------------
Tov Roy, http://www.roitov.com/articles/obama2.htm

FROM OCCUPY STREETS TO OCCUPY ELECTIONS

FROM OCCUPY STREETS TO OCCUPY ELECTIONS

Hugo Adan

Nov 7, 2012

The purpose of this article is to elaborate the thesis that the victory of Obama is irrelevant comparing to the role played by autonomous grass root organizations that expressed itself during this election. The trap posed by the bipartisan system (you should vote for the lesser evil)  didn’t work as usual. This time was the autonomous grassroots org’s  objectives that works, Obama was nothing more than an instrument to vitalize them. The massive participation of  Latinos and young women surprised Obama zealots. Obama didn’t expect  a  victory with more than 70% of Latinos voting him and the victory of women en the senate race. 

It was also un-expected  the grass root movement  of Sandra Fluke in March 2012 and before the Latino mobilizations against Obama to repudiate his emigration policies (to mention only two of many) these facts indicates the level of autonomy that this grass root org have achieved. There are contextual factors and social synergies that explain the case. One of these factors is the failure of building a Unified third choice Front. With such option the results would have been different. That factor make people take the last minute resort to finish the burring of the neocons that threaten to came back to the White house with the complicity of Obama (incarceration of Jeel Stein, among others). The aim of re-building America from the bottom up -by grass root org- is still on in people’s mind.

The electoral trap (vote either D or R) is a way of kidnaping of the electorate in the narrow jails of the bipartisan system (jails owned by big corporations) . One block of these jails have been occupied by millions of people during this election (D side) and after elections this will become insufficient to contain them. With this occupation the bipartisan system is been converted into a boomerang that now threaten to cut the heads of the 1% who profit from the misery of millions (foreclosures, the cutting of health and social benefits to elders, the cut of civil liberties worse than the Patriot Act  during the Bush era (including the unconstitutional suppression of habeas corpus  and the killing of Americans  abroad with Obama drones); the massive deportation of new immigrants after abandoning the Dream Act; the betrayal of international demands in favor of peace by patronizing the Zionist pro-war bulling against Iran and the involvement of US mercenaries (private companies) in Libya, Syria and even inside Iraq and Afghanistan, besides the criminal blockage against Cuba and the US torture center in Guantamno) these and other issues  will be taking by grassroots organizations now on. They already manage to occupy elections and consolidate that victory of people against medieval conservatism of Romney’s  billionaires. 

That was the essence  of this election. With that in mind, let’s check now the meaning of Obama’s victory. 

1. It was the victory of the difference. Women, gays, Latinos, Afro-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslim American, Iranians and other ethnicities didn’t fit into the narrow cells of the GOP and its open xenophobic  attitudes and medieval conservatism. And the message of “vive la difference” won’t fit either with the policies  of drones, financial terrorist sanctions and the centers of torture in Guantamo and other places.

2. The victory of standing for rights and values instead of submission to money and the control of politics by corporate media and their super-packs. The first evidence is the defeat of Romney (clear leader of tax evaders inside the wealthy 1% of millionaires & billionaires) and also the defeat of three wealthy senators in this race . Money, the usual buyer of elections, start been defeated and now on will be challenge hard and relentless.  Obama will be pushed to criminalize the buying of elections; it is in fact a serious crime against democracy to do so.

3. The victory of secularism. The time when pastors, priest and clergymen decide the fate and roads of grassroots movements passed away. The coupling of politics with religions is obsolete. From now on the issue of Sate-religion separation will be re-installed in education and other public domains. This society is advancing toward ethics and moral without dogmas and reason and tech-science will be re-installed in the domain of politics.  

4. It was also the victory of Peace and other universal values defended in America by grassroots org. Although Obama betrayed such principle, this election show that the American electorate is connected to real international audiences working for peace. The time for political autarchism & cultural detachment is over; our young people is connected to “others” in the same way that the young people in the Arab spring revolution  was. We are not voting anymore based only on domestic issues, we are part of the globe and their concern is ours too. Any derail from this path will create solid basis for our own spring and it will be also unpredicted. This election proved that Americans are far beyond  the rhetoric of peace from either party, democ and republicans. The same with other international issues such controlling gas emissions and coping with global warming with strong green policies. Americans really want the control of nuclear proliferation without double standards and we really want the banning of blackmailing from countries like Israel and others who possess nuclear weapons and used to impose illegal plundering and abused against neighboring countries like Palestine. The electorate repudiates the open support of Zionists  to Romney.

5. The victory of unity in action vs. bla-bla-unity of dissenters from either party (democrats and republicans). People was expecting a United Front from all small parties. It didn’t happen. This was the time to break of the trap (the voting for the lesser evil) but the small-narcisist ego prevail and ended up in the betrayal of people's expectation to create a real third choice in American democracy. We postponed this people’s demand we the argument that now it is important to consolidate the burial of the neocons or neo-nazis inside the GOP. This victory will be incomplete if we –members of third parties- do not continue such endeavor more seriously. So far, the lack of third choice is not yet considered a betrayal to peoples’ history but it will be if we abandon this aim and happily endorse our autonomy to Obama’s will. He didn’t rally gain this victory. It was the people who got it and it will continue their fight despite OB will, if we coincide, we will support  him, otherwise we are ready to sign the petition for impeachment if he don’t derogate the ** and re-installed constitutional civil liberties and habeas corpus.  

6. It was the victory of creative social-synergy.  The victory of Obama was not plotted by the 75% of Latinos who vote him, nor by the women that defend their rights against medieval conservatism, nor by Afro-Americans who tested once more their racial loyalty, it was the creative synergy of the masses who makes possible a sudden move from uncertainty and pro-skepticism & abstention to strong and massive participation to bury the neo-fascism in America. It will be the same creative synergy with solid basis on grassroots organizations that will again and again surprise the realm of politics in this country now on.

=============