Identity Politics and Economic Reality

The election was won by identity politics. Black people voted for President Obama by over 93%, Hispanics 71% and Asians 73%. The exit polls show 55% of women voted for Obama, whereas 59% of white people voted for Romney. Ninety percent who thought the economy is good voted for Obama. Those who thought it is not so good voted for Romney by 60% margins.

Why Romney lost so big is a topic really outside our purview, yet we'll put in our 2¢ that it might be due to campaign rhetoric on policies promised. Unfortunately, there are words and there are deeds. What has the Obama administration done economically for the demographic groups who gave President Obama a second term?


unemployment rates by major demographics


Let's take a look at a few economic statistics for those who voted for Obama. Above is graph of unemployment rates to match the exit polls. As we can see white males have done the best under Obama by declining unemployment rates, yet only 35% of white males voted for him. While Obama won 55% of the female vote, white women voted for Romney by 56% margins. The unemployment rate for white males was 7.2% in October 2012 whereas in January 2009 was 7.7%. Below is a graph of unemployment rates for women vs. men.


unemployment rates by sex


Below is a table of unemployment rates at the the start of Obama's first term and the latest, October 2012. We see women and blacks unemployment rate has increased, not decreased even though the recession officially ended on July 2009.


Select Unemployment Rates


January 2009

October 2012
All 7.8% 7.9%
White 7.1% 7.0%
Black 12.7% 14.3%
Hispanic 10.0% 10.0%
Women 7.0% 7.7%
Men 8.6% 8.0%


Single women have suffered economically and especially if they have children. Below is a table of unemployment rates for single mothers versus single fathers from the start of the Obama administration. We show the annual results since these unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. We also previously showed how women get the economic shaft.


Annual  Unemployment Rates For Single Parents



2009 15.0% 13.6%
2010 15.7% 14.6%
2011 11.9% 15.0%


Unfortunately the BLS does not survey employment based on immigration status. The only metric we have from the BLS is by whether someone is born inside the United States, with U.S. citizenship and who were born in foreign countries. This means people who came to the U.S. as children, legally are lumped in with foreign guest workers and people who came here illegally. There are millions of foreign guest workers in the U.S. From the 2010 Census, the foreign born make up 12.9% of the total population. Of that 12.9%, 53% are from Latin America. The foreign born who are naturalized citizens is 5.6%. Non-citizens are 7.3% of the total population. It's safe to say the below foreign born unemployment rates represent at least 50% who are not citizens, but unfortunately again, this includes green card holders mixed together with foreign guest workers and illegal workers. Over a third of the foreign born came to the United States in 2000 or later. Here is the Census report on the foreign born.


Annual Unemployment Rates for Born in the U.S. vs. Not




Foreign Born 9.7% 9.8% 9.1%
Foreign Born Men 10.0% 9.9% 8.8%
Foreign Born Women 9.2% 9.6% 9.5%
Native Born 9.2% 9.6% 8.9%
Native Born Men 10.3% 10.6% 9.5%
Native Born Women 7.9% 8.5% 8.3%


The above table shows foreign males unemployment rate has dropped 1.2 percentage points from 2009 to 2011 while the official unemployment rate for workers born in the United States has only dropped 0.8 percentage points.

Below is a graph from the Census of real median household income by race and Hispanic origin.


median income race


From 2009 to 2011, individual black people who are not Hispanic median income dropped -4.49% wheres white alone median income, adjusted for inflation, declined by -2.27%. Asians were worst off with -11.24% drop in real median income from 2009 to 2011. Hispanic inflation adjusted individual median income only dropped by -0.62% during the same years.

While males, not of Hispanic origin median income declined by -1.1%, from 2009 to 2011. While females on the other hand lost -3.38% of their median income by the same time frame.

Black males real median income dropped -5.69% from 2009 to 2011 whereas black women inflation adjusted median income declined by -3.24%. Asian males real income declined -7.18% and women Asians' inflation adjusted income plunged -13.66%.

The Hispanic male real median income only declined -1.69% and the female Hispanic real median income barely budged, with a decline of -0.99% from 2009 to 2011.

The foreign born real individual median income declined by -0.49% from 2009 to 2011. If one became a naturalized citizen, their real median income declined by -1.72%. For foreign born who are not citizens, their real median income rose by 3.3% from 2009 to 2011. The foreign born who are not citizens include legal permanent residents or green card holders, foreign guest workers and those working here illegally.


From the above statistics some groups who fared better than others under an Obama administration voted for Romney. Others who have really taken a financial hit the last four years voted for Obama anyway. The one group who seems to have improved their economic conditions the most under an Obama administration are actually not citizens of the United States and therefore cannot vote.

If people really voted their pocketbooks and past history, by the statistics at least we should have seen a Romney landslide. Unfortunately the GOP continually pound on economic policies and agendas proven not to work. Yet from the above economic facts, it's clear Obama's first term was no picnic for women and some minorities.

There's an old expression, put your money where your mouth is. Time will tell if Obama's policies match his words, but by the first term, clearly they did not.



how do "identities" map on economic quintiles?

My google fu is weak: I haven't been able to find a good source for breaking down race and gender within economic quintiles. I did find the numbers on US poverty and they're fairly simple: within poverty, half the folks are non-Hispanic white, a quarter are black, and a quarter are Hispanic. But I can't get a clearer picture of the breakdown higher up, so I don't know when identity trumps economic class in the USA.

As for voting by their pocketbooks, pretty much anyone in hard times could see Romney wasn't going to help them. He was the darling of people who still had decent incomes and didn't want to share.

by overall income is available at link

I linked to one large group of exit polls in this post and we didn't find any income by gender and race exit polls either. This is the best we found:

Romney : $50,000 to $99,999, 52% to 46%
Romney: $100,000 to $199,999, 54% to 44%
Romney: > $200,000 or more, 54% to 44%.

Obama: < $30,000, 62% to 35%
Obama: $30,000 to $49,999, 56% to 42%.

Romney had a couple of positions that were better than Obama for low income U.S. citizens, China and immigration.

Thanks! I'll be pondering

Thanks! I'll be pondering that.

This Expands and Reinforces Some of Your Points

Here are some points I picked out:

"•Since President Obama took office, 67 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).

•There were 1.94 million more immigrants (legal and illegal) working in the third quarter of 2012 than at the start of 2009, when the president took office. This compares to a 938,000 increase for natives over the same time period.

•Natives have done better in the labor market recently. From the third quarter of 2011 to the third quarter of 2012, two-thirds of employment growth went to native-born workers."


"During the Bush administration a large share of employment growth also went to immigrants — 44 percent."


"It would a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by native. But it would also be a mistake to think that dramatically increasing the supply of workers has no impact on the employment prospects of natives, particularly given their dismal employment picture. ... This president, like those before him, has chosen not to reduce immigration despite the worst job market since the Great Depression."

This article is mostly based on government figures, some of which are provided in charts.

You have to wonder how the American public would react if they realized this is what is going on; they are being passed over in their own country for jobs.

As you indicate, politically people are all over the map, often supporting politicians whose votes and actions hurt them directly and indirectly.

My question is what jobs are

My question is what jobs are they claiming? Jobs Americans want to do? Does BLS show job gains by immigrants by sector?


There is some data by occupation but it has a long delay time and that is by the BLS. The Census, through the ACS also gives characteristics of the foreign born.

There is no one tracking on how many are on guest worker Visas in the country, they on show issuances.

I haven't read this CIS analysis, although I can believe it due to what I found above. That said, we number crunch here daily, so let me get back to this.

more CIS immigrant job analysis

I just read over the CIS paper and frankly I don't see a flaw. Without cranking the numbers myself, it looks like they are showing worker displacement through immigration. There are numerous labor economic studies which show similar results and I've noticed ones claiming "immigration helps the economy" usually cherry pick, commonly by three labor economics tricks. First, they set labor substitution variables to zero and claim immigrants and natives do not compete for the same occupations, clearly false and can be seen in the CIS paper by occupation to be false.

CIS is simply taking BLS data so ones claiming that's spun, well, talk to the Census and the BLS for it's not spun data.

The second trick is to not tally in costs of immigration. For example, instead of tallying in the fact we have worker swap, that an American worker was in that job previously, the paper will claim x immigrant generated y jobs. Well, when that American was in that job, they already generated y jobs, so instead what one has, which is ignored, is an America worker now underemployed at best and that is not recognized either. Additional costs such as educating the children of illegal immigrants is never mentioned, or the use of medical services not paid for, welfare benefits received, even thought illegal workers are not eligible for them, increase government services and my favorite, the resulting wage repression, or lost wages as an aggregate.

The third trick some of these spin papers do is to pick a micro-economy, such as Miami in the 1980's and declare because that micro-economy, or city economy must be due to illegal immigrants. That's false and in the case of Miami, it was the cocaine, drug trade that fueled the city's economic boom. Billions were laundered and pour into various investments, construction.

Bottom line, if immigrants helped the economy, wouldn't we have seen a massive increase in GDP, standard of living by now? Nope, we don't, instead California just keeps increasing taxes....all to pay for their estimated $11 billion a year illegal immigration costs.

I'll try to dig into what data I can get and write up a post on this later. But I also noticed special interest groups trying to claim the CIS paper is "spun" and I sure don't see any statistical spin in it.

Just for one example, Bill

Just for one example, Bill Gates (among others) has been pushing for H-1B visas. They allow foreigners with a college-level education in a "specialty" field to come here for three years. They can't switch jobs unless they reapply for their visa, so they're basically indentured servants who will take lower pay than Americans. Microsoft hires someone from, say, Mumbai with a degree in computer programming, pays him peanuts for three years, and sends him home again. Thanks, globalization.


It's more than Bill Gates demanding more Visas. Microsoft fired over 5,000 people and replaced them with foreign guest workers.

They use H-1B to labor arbitrage and displace American STEM workers.


Shouldnt the UE rate at the time the President actually passed something be used rather than Jan 2009? 4 months later it was 9.5

January 2009 is "what he got"

It's the state of the economy he got and then comparing against the end of his first term (if the data is available that far out). Taking a quarter or so when we're really trying to look at the change over a four year time period is the key.

The reason I'm doing comparisons is to show various demographic identity groupings relative to others.

For example, the black unemployment rate is obscene and has been for some time. But where one can look at Obama is how relative to other races it has increased more than others under his administration.

IS the hook easier to set in certin segments

I have a friend that posted the question, "how can any rational person vote for Romney?" My answer to her was how can any rational person vote for either of them? My vote went to Gary Johnson.

I asked her if she agrees with the economic policy of the current administration and the quantitative easing. Her answer was that Obama is for womens right to abortion. Hm? So we can go down in economic flames because she believed the rhetoric that abortion will disappear? Even if Romney doesn't agree with abortion getting the law quashed would be monumental, something that wouldn't be worth the time of a President during this mini-depression. Plus if indeed Romney would have gotten the law reversed, most of the States would probably legalize it.

So the hooks are set in the mouths of the Party addicts, a hook that isn't easily removed.

If Obama worked for me would I have kept him on the payroll? Nope!

Then there are those sticky wicket statistical anomalies we read about. IS there truth to them?

"59 different Philadelphia voting divisions in which Mitt Romney received zero votes compared to Obama’s 19,605. And the Cleveland precinct in which Obama beat Romney 542 to 0. (In fact, Romney received zero votes in nine Cleveland precincts.) And in one Ohio county – widely considered ground zero for the election – Obama received 106,258 votes from 98,213 eligible voters – an impossible 108 percent of the vote. "

How in the world would either of the two candidates get the companies to remove the cheap labor capital, of foreign workers, hook from their mouths?

Is the USA in trouble? :)

social issues = identity politics

They have been playing women's rights for over 30 years and those anti-women religious zealots, the GOP thinks without them they will not win, instead of without women they will not win.

Honestly the law has been established, now there is enormous precedent. At the same time, Ireland just killed a woman by refusing to give her an abortion when it was clear the life of the mother was at risk and a girl was shot in the head for wanting to go to school....

so, with that kind of women hatred at a global scale, well, if they are going to kill you or enslave you, economics would become secondary.

I saw that on Philadelphia and if you saw my back of the napkin on the black vote in Ohio, hmmmm, they are railing up the actual black population in terms of vote turn out.

I don't know, that's a major statistical project to look at population numbers, statistics vs. vote turn out, registered voters and so on but it sure looked funky to me.

That was another bogus non-issue, the left put out all sorts of crud about voter repression of minorities and alluded to the 1960's where voter repression was very real.

So, lots of micro-targeting by the Obama administration. Romney claimed Obama gave "gifts" and indeed they did. Two year work Visas for some illegals was one of the obvious ones. That said, GE just got a gift, they paid zero taxes and we know Romney would have given many, many gives to corporations in terms of offshore tax havens and other things.

The whole thing is disgusting. We have our usual wedge issues to cobble together a winning electoral margin. National interests and really workers, middle class interests be damned.

Good for you voting 3rd party. We wouldn't be in such a mess if corporate money was out of politics plus there were more national parties.

Kept trying to tell the Romney supporters

I kept trying to tell the Romney supporters about his baggage. Sure Romney has some winners in the mergers and acquisitions business but he also had losers. The M&A business isn't for the faint at heart but sharks abound. Romney made a fortune by using existing tax code and tax code leveraging of money. Ya think for one moment Romney would be willing to rein in the enormous tax code? I don't think so.

Who in the Republican Party thought Romney would be w good choice and a choice that could garner votes from the Democratic Party?

Giving things to win elections isn't new. In 140 B.C. the Roman politicians found the country in trouble and that meant they, the politicians were in trouble. It is when the term bread and circuses was born. The politicians learned that they could buy votes from giving things to the people.

Moral hazards increase during bad times and I wonder if the government is tracking the possible fraud in the social security disability division?

Then you also have the oligarchy, corporate fascism in the government that is stealing from the people and I can only wonder how long we can play this game?????

"Why is the Social Security Administration receiving more and more claims for disability benefits? Why was there an increase of 21-percent for disability applications between 2008 and 2009? "

The government(s) aren't very good at researching social services fraud. My friend of 53 years had a niece that went bad for a while. Within several years after turning 18 the niece had two babies to the same guy. They weren't married. The bio father was running a construction business using illegal labor, paying them under the table and most of what he did was under the table. Bio dad and niece lived in the same apartment. Bio mom was on welfare, Medicaid, WIC. The two were defrauding the government(s) in many ways,

Eventually bios dad walked out and the niece decides to go to a $25,000 a year school and the State picked up 1/2 of the tab.

Finally the niece straightened out. I suspect that she collected about $100,000 in benefits. As a not working person, she went to a school that I couldn't afford for my my son. Now multiple my little anecdotal example of fraud throughout the country and I am guessing there is a big problem.

There was an increase of 21-percent for social security disability applications between 2008 and 2009? I am not confident that the administration is all to keen at checking for fraud. Ya don't want to tick off the voting public.

the issues aren't disability and food stamps, it's JOBS, income

Look, I get what the right is all up in arms with the Obama administration working with Mexico to make sure Mexicans apply for food stamps, I get that.

But the bottom line here isn't how these various rolls have dramatically increased it's people are so desperate to survive they are turning to whatever is left of the social safety net.

If the GOP really wants to reduce the welfare rolls they will focus on one thing and that's jobs.

Both parties need to quit with the corporate talking points, which usually involved U.S. worker displacement, offshore outsourcing jobs and enact policies right now, that are proved to be effective to generate jobs.

Take cuts for the rich do not generate jobs. More foreign guest worker Visas do not generate jobs.

Tying corporate taxes to direct hiring will generate jobs. Insisting any federal funds, all workers must be U.S. citizens, i.e mandatory buy America and hire American conditions in receiving any contracts, federal funds....will generate jobs.

The list goes on and on and neither party will do it.

Right now they are going to screw the American people and cut their social security benefits under the guise of the "grand bargain" and fiscal dreaded cliff. America should plain revolt if they do that. Social security is not an entitlement. People earned those benefits, have paid into social security through their paychecks for years.

Would they cut corporate welfare to balance the budget? Of course not, this is all a bunch of crap to screw over the American people on what meager benefits they have left for old age.

Good jobs for most Americans would help keep society strong

It's so clear, Americans that had decent jobs wouldn't have to rely on govt. assistance (and for which most paid by the way, something politicians and hucksters never mention). Paying into the system also relieves any budget gaps because govt. takes in more, pay out less as people no longer need help. People with good jobs can settle down in one community, enroll their kids in schools, join the PTA/PTO, pay property taxes that support local police, fire, waste, etc. People with good jobs have kids that see their parents treated well by by the govt. and employers and can themselves too think the American Dream is real and possible to them. They think working hard in school is worth it, behaving well is worth it, and view citizenship and living in America as truly great. They see the system working and want to help it continue indefinitely. They trust the institutions they deal with (e.g., big and small businesses, banks, local, state, and county officials) more than if they are unemployed or scraping by in jobs they can't survive on. Parents with good jobs are less likely to suffer from preventable diseases, alcoholism, depression, abuse, etc. Their children are less likely to witness family trauma, and thus are more likely to help build stable families and societies in the future.

On the other hand, the exact opposite is true when there are no good jobs for the majority of citizens. They rely more on assistance from others, and when that's not available, they get sick, become homeless, and/or die. They turn to drugs, alcohol, etc. That increases the burden on police, fire/EMTs, social services, etc. They can't afford to feed and house themselves or children or take care of sick relatives. When possible, any burden is shifted to others in desperation. They criticize and despise those that ignore or mock them, like millionaire politicians, TV and radio personalities, and billionaire kleptocrats that have the only access to those in power. They can't buy houses or sign long-term leases because they know they will be fired at a moment's notice and/or any job they do get simply won't cover rent or a mortgage, food, fuel, clothing, and the myriad other expenses they have (including health insurance and benefits companies no longer cover). They can't plan for next week, let alone next year, because jobs in 2012 are short-term, contractual nightmares that can end immediately with no notice. They don't trust institutions like federal, state, or local govt. and view the police and law enforcement as only protecting the moneyed elite. They pass their cynicism on to their friends and families. They see those that didn't attend US elementary schools, or middle and high schools, or even colleges, getting hired as those doing the hiring lie to their faces and say they are unskilled and lazy. The Americans passed over and lied to lose faith that truth matters or that even being a citizen matters to those in charge and pass on that truth to everyone they know because it is obvious American jobs are being shipped overseas or given to foreigners coming into the US in the tens of millions, building more and more distrust in the social fabric. And information is available publicly proving that the "public servants" serve the people that fund them, and only them, not American citizens.

Truth and fairness and honesty are seen as burdens in advancement and even survival as lies, stepping on others, and do anything as long as it serves you becomes the new motto, not work hard, study hard, and always treat others fairly and with integrity become derided.

And so it goes. Jobs for American citizens? Yeah, that's the cure for most ills. And yet the reason they refuse to do anything about it is because it goes against their bosses' interests.

Ya got that right

Ya got that right. It is a rigged game and most of the people are on the wrong end of the stick.

"Of course not, this is all a bunch of crap to screw over the American people on what meager benefits they have left for old age. "

Look at the crap TARP did and it was all to make the big boys happy.

I'm very negative about what I see these days and I think it will take a miracle for the USA to turn around. I'm worried that they will try to old start a war trick because war has in the past been good for economy.

I keep remembering ole Ross Perot talking about the sucking sound. The sucking sound came and whisked the jobs away, far away. The idea that all we need is to educate more is an illusion. We could educate every kid in the USA and there wouldn't be enough jobs to fill the need. Plus there are people who will just never, ever, never understand calculus. SO what are we to do with the math challenged, just throw them on the funeral pyre?

I'm one of those believers that think to have a vibrant society, a vibrant full economy, you need the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, all working here on our soil. I'm not a globalist. To me a global economy benefits the high up the chain folks and does little for the remainder of us.

"Voting their pocketbooks"?

Why on earth would anyone "voting their pocketbooks" vote for a return to the discredited ideology, the political party, and the same set of inept economic advisors who were responsible for the greatest economic disaster in their lifetimes? Are you nuts?

we said this

Democrats aren't exactly helping the middle class either, especially single women with children frankly, but at the top of this article we said political rhetoric instead of pocketbook beyond identity policies.

It was the Clinton administration who deregulated banking that enabled the financial crisis.

This site is fact based, not partisan.

Fact-based, non-partisan

My first time to your blog. At times it seems reasonable and at times it shows a tendency for left-wing rantings (populism, as you say).

To be fair, we should note that the "Great Recession" was preciptated not only by Clinton-era deregulation, but also by Clinton-era over-regulation (CRA re-auth. in 1995 and HUD sub-prime quotas for FNMA & FRMC for ex.).

I find the stance here on pensions and SS to be not-fact-based. Certainly, ppl were led to believe that they were paying into SS, but it is a pay as you go system, there is not a single nickel set aside. Kinda like that Bernie Madoff situation, eh?

You want fact-based, here it is. Due to an aging population and exponentially increasing health costs, the 3 big gov't transfer programs (SS, MC, MI) are set to ex/implode our nation's finances as the Baby Boomers retire. That is straight from the CBO.

your agenda is showing

We've pulled many a CBO estimate on this site and social security is not in danger. There is an obvious fix, to raise the top income limit for percentage contributions. We've also written many times about the for profit health industry and how the U.S. pays at least 3x as much for the same care as other industrialized nations.

Medicare and social security are not government transfers. People have paid into social security and earned those benefits. They have already paid for these benefits and that's what payroll taxes are all about.

"Set aside" is because Congress raided the fund.

Blaming the Community reinvestment act for the housing crisis has been disproved, repeatedly. Black people did not cause Wall street to bundle up bad mortgages into CDOs /w tranches, slap them with AAA ratings and then issue CDSes on them. That's all Wall street, the banks, in cahoots with the credit rating agencies and they are at fault.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act were the culprits and lest we not forget Bush administration encouraging "home ownership" among those here illegally, along with BoA and Countrywide.

Confusing historical events to fit your philosophy is not fact based statistical and event reality.

Gotta love this comment, it attacks the site generally and then spews out a bunch of fiction, perpetuated by corporate lobbyists hiding behind propaganda institutions such as a the Heritage foundation.

Sorry dude, we actually pull up CRS and CBO analysis and look at their assumptions, go to the raw statistical data, run our own numbers and you're just touting some very worn out lobbyist generated talking points for the long standing Wall Street/GOP agenda to destroy America's social safety nets.

July of 2009 is a Better Baseline Date for Rating Performance

July '09 not January '09 is a better comparison date for the Obama Administration's policies. If you start in January, after all, you get 3 weeks of pure Bush. But using the February to July period, we still labor under Bush policy. Starting from July of '09, its all Obama. That said, it is hard to see the statistical push in any of the 'Stimulus'. Rather, there is a slow painful drop in all unemployment rates. For years, we agonized how the Stimulus was constucted. Bank bailouts, tax cuts, state aid, and last but not least, the Detroit Bailout, the smallest but most effective part.

Many contributors to these pages argued strongly for the Industrial Planning component of the Stimulus to be primary. Never happened. But the Industrial Planning part of the Stimulus can be fairly said to have contributed to Obamas re-election in the Great Lakes states: Obama won every Great Lakes industrial state except Indiana. The begininings of re-industrialization of the Midwest touched not only autos but steel, plastics, auto parts, oil and gas.

Bringing back smokestack America was the enduring theme of the campaign.

Burton Leed

for this purpose January 09 is fine

That's still "Bush" and what we're doing here is not showing the effect or lack thereof on Obama's policies per say. That's impossible because the jobs slaughter reached it's height all through 2009 and one cannot say that's Obama's fault, he inherited a financial crisis and a major recession, so we'll just leave that one out.

What we are showing in this post, again, repeat, is the relative changes of various groups by demographics and this is something the Obama administration, through enforcement of EEOC as an example, putting a moratorium on foreign guest worker Visas (which he did not), these are all actions that could have been done, but were not, by executive order, policy, enforcement, under the Obama's administration's control not Congress.

Doing something about work discrimination against single mothers is another example. Hiring discrimination these days is brazen and if one notices, the DOL is AWOL.

So, the point is to show that blacks, as a group have been economically slaughtered under the Obama administration, relative to the statistics for say foreign born or white people.

That's the point of showing unemployment rates decreasing for white men vs. black unemployment rates increasing. It's relative to each other.

Honestly, please read the post and assumptions before making declarations in the comments.

This entire article is to show the relative to each other economic statistics of the major voting blocks by demographics.

We're saying the first Black President sure didn't do squat for Black people economically, relative to say foreigners, Hispanics, white people. One would think with a Black President the DOL, EEOC and other groups would be out in full force implementing, enforcing the laws on the books, which would have helped Black people economically.

Take foreclosure as an example. The Obama administration made a "50 state deal" on foreclosure fraud and we have disproportion foreclosures, shady mortgages for Black people. Not exactly doing much there on economic discrimination.

I think the problem here is

I think the problem here is in how the framework of assumptions is working...

Just a guess, but my bet is that people are somewhat more sophisticated then simply checking off who relates to their immediate problems or not (jobs, etc.)

there is also a projective component.

in other words, people in regular everyday time are involved in an effort to assess what offers a better likelihood of results. choice is not simply a pure-consumerist option in an idealist way, but rather has more realism in it. In other words, many adult choices have to do with what, in the given field of options, as presented in the here and now, holds a somewhat better chance of working in regards to needs/values/hopes. Projective assessments., projective thinking, projective evaluation. No easy feat. Sometimes simply a wager. Sometimes very hard to decide. But point is 'choice' as an adult in the real world, is NOT just 1-to-1 relations like machines, but involves thinking HOW this or that MAY fare in relation to the other option.

IN this way, I think the vote here represents that many thought that basically Romney would lead to more difficult times, and/or if you prefer, that the Obama admin option offered a somewhat better chance (RELATIVE to the ACTUAL options in the here and now, offered) of leading to 'things' in their interest.

So, again, NOT so much about simply just here and now 1-to-1 evaluation but rather about thinking ahead, but NOT idealistically, but rather with REALISM... dealing with what was offered now, as possible new directions...

There are few blog posts I agree with

This one I do not dispute.
GOPers refuse to admit that liberal financial markets shift returns away from the middle class. When high-rollers get free money (negative real interest rates) the purchasing power of the everyday person declines because of the weaker dollar.
Oh, and another thing Dems were right on: W cut taxes and went to war on the credit card because President Cheney said deficits do not matter.
Here's what I want answered: In 2009, money was sitting on the sidelines because "We don't know which way the economy was going."
In 2013, you will hear the same thing.
Why is this?
Can it be actually that wealth holders distrust a liberal (black) man to be aligned with their private interests?
They did the same thing to Roosevelt in 1937.