Got to remind those fearful of a Mormon president of this.
You HAVE to be kidding!!
Posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:17 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
As the smoke clears from the wreckage of the Romney defeat on Tuesday, some intriguing yet disturbing facts are coming to light.
* Fewer people overall voted in 2012 (about 117 million) compared to 2008 (about 125 million).
* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).
* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win — clearly it did not.
* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)
Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:
The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a “Massachusetts moderate.” The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romney’s 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romney’s 31%).
That said, what I’m looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble:
42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008. 57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008. When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012.
You’d think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didn’t. 78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasn’t nearly enough.
To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldn’t win.
Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008. 48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasn’t enough.
Now consider this additional data:
In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, –no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this.
Of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, therefore, about 30 million (26%) were evangelicals. Of this, 21% — or about 6.4 million evangelicals — voted for Obama.
By comparison, of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, 32.5 million (26%) were evangelicals. At the time, Obama won 24% of evangelicals, or about 7.8 million people.
What’s more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls. In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic.
Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.
What does all this mean? A few observations:
During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters — they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)
There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romney’s Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout.
The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls — but it did not work.
Despite Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record — a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics — Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obama’s evangelical and Catholic vote.
If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – he would have won the election handily.
It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?
Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.
This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action. Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.
What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them?
This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.
That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.
We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.
None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being “salt” and “light” to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isn’t a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals — a Third Great Awakening. As men and women’s hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we don’t see a Third Great Awakening soon, I’m not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.
Then what DOES it mean? To you, that is.
More than interesting.
If they cannot believe their own man would be good for the USA; does it indicate that deep inside their hearts they are beginning to realize that their chosen religion just may not be good for their souls as well?
They have been fed social and progressive programming for a bunch of years now.
The Emergent/Purpose Driven Church. Rick Warren/Joel Olstein/contemplative spirituality/co-exist movement, and it is social programming and it is very effective.
At my last church, there were three speaking engagements- in the two months leading up to the election, with social justice leaders. It is HUGE industry and wildly popular. It is all over TV and books stores and radio. And the white suburban people were mesmerized and intoxicated with the message of the plight of the poor urban black man.
The church has been taken over as well.
That is what socialists do.
If they cannot believe their own man would be good for the USA; does it indicate that deep inside their hearts they are beginning to realize that their chosen religion just may not be good for their souls as well?
When I said 7% of blacks who did not vote for Obama does not mean they automatically voted for Romney, you asked me what it means. Most Blacks who did not vote for Obama probably did not vote - at least that is what I read among Christian Blacks upset of Obama’s homo and abortion stand.
Obama had a lower turnout. Romney had a lower turnout than McCain. I strongly suspect that Obama won by voter fraud.
Look at the damage they did in New England...THREE pro-abortion, pro-sodomite radical women elected to higher office in Red Hampshire; one of them pro-Islam. Two to Congress, one is the new Governor. Then there is Elizabeth Warren...all with the support of Catholics. Can anyone explain that without using the old CINO excuse?
1. Yes
2. None of the above. All the R downticket people got my vote.
Their individual stands on certain issues may have not been to my liking, but at least the had chosen the right PARTY that mostly mirrors my concerns and wants.
Extra Credit:
Being in a Conservative (most of the time) state (Indiana), and a VERY conservative county as well (Dems hardly put up ANY candidates for local offices) my vote (non-vote) against the status quo in BOTH major parties would cause nary a recognizable ripple to disturb the Force. (Where are the threads examining what the votes for non D/R’s mean??)
(You said 8% earlier...)
#252 Around 8% of Evangelicals are Blacks. They voted their color like they always do.
#254 Black evangelicals never vote for the Republican.
Then it means your earlier posts were incorrect as I stated; for you have now clarified the 'they' to mean only 93%.
Now THIS is a statement I can hang MY hat on!
Try to find a 'hellfire' pastor preaching at a Bible-believing church in New England. Just try. Lukewarm as they come.
This aspect of the 'blame game' is total BS...it is the fault of this group; it is the fault of that group.
Here is who is at fault...the GOP nominates a candidate who was being rejected by 65-70% of Republican voters all the way thru the primary process. They leave their primaries 'open' to Democrat shenanigans. Then they are SHOCKED when a good portion of the 65%'ers don't show up on Election Day. That 'where else are they going to go?' mandate didn't sell. They stayed home. Blacks obey their plantation owners on Election Day...enough of the 65%'ers threw off their chains to keep Romney from winning. It's as simple as that.
Isnt it wonderful that the threads are ‘restored’ to normal ???
;)
One can never be brilliant with auto correct on the IPhone
Elsie you are despicable.
Get your nasty prickily a life Elsie. :)
Note: A LOT of native americans are mormon. Suggests the agenda here.
Post #187 is a direct statement that those who feared Romney because he is a Mormon (ie liberals and others) should remember that Harry Reid is too. IOWs 'if Harry Reid is OK then why isn't Romney?' You missed the point of that by a mile.
Now there is a sane post. The GOP-e lost this election and it is the GOP-e who is now running around trying to put the blame on everyone and anyone else that it can to deflect the blame from its conservative treason and maintain its hold on the GOP. Tokyo Rove is the architect of it all. Conservatives are not welcome in ‘his’ party.
Great, how about letting the other poster and me work it out if she thinks that I am wrong about her posts, I don’t want to get into an extended discussion with a third party about what is in some other poster’s mind.
Got to remind those fearful of a Mormon president of this.
You HAVE to be kidding!!
Oh SNAP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.