Skip to comments.287,301 in 4 states
Posted on 11/07/2012 10:51:37 AM PST by JLS
click here to read article
And I bet those some morons voted again on election day.
Who the hell ever allowed “early voting?” You should have to vote either absentee or on election day.
Great points. completely agree. People here need to grow a set. I mean, I know its not all roses either, but this emoting is rather, I dunno, liberal...
Well said KC. Unfortunately, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
BTW, I left unsaid, had Romney squeaked this out all would be giddy today. The country is the same either way.
Yes Obama will do some damage. Most of it can be undone and no major Obama care like legislation can pass. The biggest worry is Supreme Court retirements.
Yeah, like a close football game that comes down to the final play. You make it? You are a genius, the best, all is well. You missed it? You are an idiot, the worst, all is hell...
Brownsfan, the demographics may not get better, but the way they are aggregated could certainly improve.
I’m of a mind that we have confirmed the tipping point is past; that, based on the current model, the takers who vote will be able to control the producers who vote by sheer numbers in a few small, geographically distinct areas.
If we were a nation of 150 states, carved from the current 50 (or 57 for the Zero fans), with the associated dispersal of Electoral College votes, then we would be much closer to a model that better emulates the national demographics, improves representation, and brings a bit more ‘level’ to the playing field.
The alternative: three distinct countries. One that is the Northeast/Michigan/Wisconsin/DC, one the Left Coast (all of it), and the third all the rest.
I’m fine with either model. Let’s get started.
plus votes that went to Gary Johnson
“Most of it can be undone and no major Obama care like legislation can pass.”
BO has shown he has little real respect for the Constitution. He’ll just make an end run around that pesky Legislative Branch by continuing to issue executive orders.
The margin was small enough that this Mormon factor could be a substantial part of the explanation for the margin in this election, but I’m guessing not the total vote decline since 2008.
I’ll suggest negative advertising in the swing states depressed the turnout. That is the purpose of negative advertising. Barry and crew started early and hard at this without any response from Romney.
I see the biggest change in the last 2 decades as the ongoing growth of Hispanics (legal and illegal).
Bigger than the black bloc now and 70% plus Dem. votes.
It’s changed the landscape.
Turnout went down about 10%, by about 12 million votes. 80% of those votes came from Obama’s 2008 totals, the other 20% from McCain’s.
That is a bizarre result. As has been reported, I think a president hasn’t won reelection with less vote than he was elected with in 40 years or so.
I don’t think the conventional analysis of who “won” applies in this case. People abandoned both parties this time, but by a 4-to-1 margin they abandoned Obama more.
Granted, the huge base Obama started with was the fundamental problem. It seems people now believe Obama is as likely to fix the economy as they thought McCain was in 2008. But they remained even more unconvinced that the Republicans could do it either. The biggest failure of Romney seems to be his failure to respond to Obama’s totally dishonest attacks that Romney would “continue the Bush policies that caused the crisis.”
Romney lost to Obama by less than 300,000 votes of out almost 117,000,000 votes casts. The electoral college can fool one into thinking a close election is a blowout.
I think you may be a prophet.
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.