Poverty, Economic Status, and Their Links to the 2012 Presidential Election

Economic status plays a key role in the 2012 election. With over 15 percent of the American population living below the poverty line, a voter’s economic security becomes a powerful influence when casting his ballot (Enloe and Seager 54)(Barry et. al 173).  By observing the voting trends in individual states, I will link economic status’ relation to partisanship in America, and discuss how it traps low-income households located in high poverty states.

There are currently eighteen States in America whose poverty rates exceed the national average (Enloe and Seager 54). The majority of these states only exceed the national average by four percent; however, certain states among them are more than five percent above the national average.  These states are predominately located on the southern border, with Montana and Michigan as notable low-income exceptions in the North. 

By examining how these states suffering from elevated poverty vote, it becomes plain that these states as a whole have republican tendencies.  Fifteen of these eighteen high-poverty states had a majority of voters supporting republican candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 election (National Post).  However, it is important to distinguish this trend from a belief that the majority of low-income voters in these states espouse Romney.  While the majority of the states’ population may lean Republican, the citizens living below the poverty line may be prone to vote otherwise. 
                 Ohio, Michigan, and New Mexico are the only three states to have strayed from the trend of high-poverty states voting Republican (Enloe and Seager)(Election 2012: Results).  President Obama was supported by a minimum of fifty-nine percent of citizens from households earning below fifty thousand in all three states (Election 2012: Results).  

(Bart)

                The republican alignment in high-poverty states might be caused by low-income voters.  Low-income Americans may not have the “necessary resources (time and money)” to take part in the election (Barry et. al 173).  Such voters, living in trying financial conditions, cannot afford to take time off work to wait in line on election day.  Though methods such as advanced voting exist, it may be perceived as too time consuming or complex by uneducated voters.  In severe cases of poverty, low-income Americans are more likely to focus on short-term personal survival rather than long-term election results.  In the absence of their vote, wealthier Americans, who voted in greater number for Romney in 2012, are given more power by means of less competition(Election 2012: Results).  

  While this may offers insight into voting trends of high-poverty states, how do low-income Americans themselves vote when they are able? Fifty-eight percent of households with an income under twenty-four thousand dollars supported Obama before the election, and sixty percent of the same group voted for him on the 6^th of November (Newport)(Election 2012:Results).  Observing this statistic it would be expected that states with high poverty rates would have been more likely to have voted democratic than republican in this past election, assuming low-income citizens were able to vote (One-Third of Lowest-Income Voters Support Romney).  
I will analyze the election results in Mississippi, as it is near the geographical center of the aforementioned eighteen states and also has the highest poverty rate in the country, with twenty-one percent of its citizens living below the poverty line (Enloe and Seager).  Like the many other high-poverty states, Mississippi went republican during the 2012 election. Of the households earning less than 50 thousand a year in Mississippi, fifty-four percent voted in favor of Obama during the election (Election 2012:Results). The majority of Mississippians living in difficult financial situations voted Democratic, perhaps in an attempt to avoid Romney’s trickle down economics in favor of Obama more socialist approach. 
The votes of low-income households were overshadowed by those of wealthier citizens in Mississippi, who voted en masse for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney.  Although only forty-eight percent of Mississippi households earn more than 50 thousand a year, those that do supported Romney with seventy-one percent of their vote, dwarfing the majority of low-income households. Because of strong republican tendencies in financially stable households living in high-poverty states, the democratic supporting low-income households are being eclipsed. This prevents them from providing Electoral College votes from their state to a presidential candidate more in tune with their interests. 
This scenario perpetuates the alienation of the lower-income households from the American electoral system.  Due to the trend of higher income households voting Republican in states where poverty is above the national average, it can be difficult for the low-income citizens to be heard.  This, coupled with lower voter turnout among low-income Americans, could be a crippling combination preventing upward social mobility for poor and suffering Americans.

Barry, Jeffrey M, Jerry Goldman, Kevin W. Hula, and Kenneth Janda. The Challenge 
of Democracy American Government in Global Politics. United States: Wadsworth, 
Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Bart, Breit. "Breitbart.com." Breitbart News Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/USDA-Food-Stamps-Will-Help-You-Look-Your-Best>.

"Election 2012: Results." CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 Nov.      
  2012. <http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main>.

Enloe, Cynthia H., and Joni Seager. The Real State of America Atlas: Mapping the Myths 
and Truths of the United States. New York, NY: Penguin, 2011. Print.

Newport, Frank. "One-Third of Lowest-Income Voters Support Romney." One-Third of Lowest-Income Voters Support Romney. Gallup, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. <http://www.gallup.com/video/157568/one-third-lowest-income-voters-support-romney.aspx>.

Newport, Frank. "Romney Has Support Among Lowest Income Voters." Romney Has 
Support Among Lowest Income Voters. N.p., 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. 
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/157508/romney-support-among-lowest-income-
voters.aspx>.

National Post "U.S. Election Results 2012: Who’s winning?" . N.p., 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 
Nov. 2012. <http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/06/us-election-results-2012-
whos-winning/>.

Candidates Careful Not to ‘Blow’ Tragedy Out of Proportion

The presidential candidates appear uncertain of how to respond to the turmoil caused by Hurricane Sandy. Their reactions to this natural disaster will provide voters an opportunity to judge the character and moral fibre of their candidates; an important aspect of the election.  As the election date draws nearer, this unsuspected twist in the campaign has caused both the incumbent and the challenger to modify their campaign agendas.  At such a pivotal point in the election process, both campaigns are treading carefully around the tragedy of the hurricane, in an attempt to win over the electorate.

            Indeed, the public is anxious to know how the candidates will react.  As party based notions of voting have been declining since the 1950’s, the impact of direct actions of candidates becomes more relevant (Barry et. al 226).  The current candidate-centered ideology places increased value on character of a candidate rather than their policies or partisanship (Barry et. al 223). This shift in values, magnified by the last-minute nature of the event, leaves both candidates in a precarious situation. 

            The campaign managers of both candidates realize they are under much public scrutiny and pressure.  This is evident in the expedient changes implemented to the Obama and Romney campaigns.

            While the Romney campaign is continuing with its campaign in Ohio, it modified its rally to act as a fundraiser for hurricane victims (Lemire).  Although this may at first glance appear innocent, the changes could be a ploy to attract sympathy from voters affected by the hurricane.  The rally starkly contrasted hurricane aid with the usual republican videos and anti-Obama T-shirts in the crowd (Barbaro, Shear).  Perhaps just the work of steadfast republicans, the intermingling of the two separate causes detracted from solemnity of the issue, and made the hurricane aid seem a rushed addition to a rehearsed act.

                                                                                (Crowly)

Both Romney and Obama must be careful to avoid “playing politics with tragedy”(Lemire) as such a moral taboo would reflect poorly on the candidate (Barry et. al 223).  If either candidate were perceived by the public to be consciously using the hurricane to their advantage, it would result in weaker support at the polls as suggested by the notions of candidate-centered elections. This presents a delicate situation in which candidates must gingerly support the victims of the hurricane without appearing over-zealous.

President Obama’s campaign is taking a different approach in reaction to Hurricane Sandy. Deferring to his role as president, the incumbent cancelled his rally in the swing-state of Ohio, choosing instead to discuss the government’s aid effort in the Situation Room (Dickerson).  The president spoke to this campaign decision this during a briefing, saying that he was “not worried at this point about the impact on the election”, but rather the safety of Americans (qtd in Dickerson).

This admirable action of adhering to presidential duties during such a pivotal time in the campaign has a dual purpose; it highlights his good-natured and caring character while he is temporarily removed from the campaign, and advocates the value of his character, which will increase his popularity (Barry et. al 223).  However, this tactic remains a double-edged sword, which could prove fatal to the incumbent if the electorate suspects he is stepping away from his planned schedule merely to gain attention and public favor.

Although both presidential campaigns reacted differently to the hurricane, both strategies revolved around promoting the candidates personal qualities. Due to this candidate-centered approach, the importance of both parties’ platforms and proposed policies are being undermined.  This is a reason both candidates will appear to act virtuously and with seemingly selfless intent for hurricane victims for the remainder of the campaign.

With little time remaining, it is responses of these politicians, not their policies, which will have the greater impact. The strongest short-term force that can affect an election is the candidates’ attributes (Barry et. al 223).  The sudden hurricane forces both unprepared candidates onto a public stage to try and out-perform one another, but they must be careful to keep a somber undertone in all their undertakings in order to appear earnest.

Barbaro, Michael, and Michael D. Shear. "Storm Pushes Aside Presidential Politics, Mostly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/politics/storm-pushes-presidential-race-from-spotlight.html?_r=0>.

Barry, Jeffrey M, Jerry Goldman, Kevin W. Hula, and Kenneth Janda. The Challenge of

Democracy American Government in Global Politics. United States: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Cooper, Michael. "Hurricane Sandy Brings Obstacles Before Election." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/politics/hurricane-sandy-brings-obstacles-before-election.html>.

Crowley, Stephen. 2012. Photograph. The New York Times, n.p.

Dickerson, John. "Today Hurricane Sandy Is the Most Important Woman in the Swing States." Slate Magazine. Slate MAgazine, 29 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_are_trying_to_navigate_the.html>.

Lemire, Jonathan. "Hurricane Sandy Plunges Presidential Race into Uncertainty." NY Daily News. Daily News, 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/election-uncertain-wake-sandy-article-1.1194976>.