Posted on 11/08/2012 5:39:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Conservatives need to take a collective breath and look closer at the numbers before they buy into the idea that GOP nominee Mitt Romney's defeat was due to some kind of national demographic shift that now makes Democrat presidential candidates' armor impenetrable. Before you give in to the hysteria, here are a few things to keep in mind.
First, Barack Obama's re-election showing was actually pretty unimpressive for a guy whose philosophies voters have supposedly adopted. As of this writing on Wednesday, Obama's vote total stood at an unimpressive 60,119,958. That's about what John Kerry got in 2004 (59,028,444). President George W. Bush actually did far better than Obama in his 2004 reelection quest, posting a vote total that was about 2 million higher (62,040,610) than what Obama got on Tuesday. That's hardly a remarkable finish in a country with a population that has increased. In fact, it's a decline of 9 million votes from Obama's 2008 total.
Had Romney (57,425,441) done as well as McCain did in 2008 (59,934,814), he and Obama would have run neck and neck, virtually matching each other's vote totals. That's hardly the stuff of demographic ruin.
The question Republicans and conservatives need to ask is not why voters showed up for Obama, whose turnout wasn't exactly extraordinary, but why millions of their own voters, people who had pulled the lever for Bush and McCain, didn't do the same for Romney or simply stayed home.
Why did Romney get a full 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did? Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney? Who were they and where did they go? That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.
Is it possible that Republicans and conservative leaning independents just weren't that wild about the guy?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Although, that’s getting tougher to do... Because, men don’t WANT To get married while they’ve got barely-above-minimum wage jobs”........and, more importantly, I believe, is that many men will not make commitments to marriage with women because sex with multiple partners is so easy to find because wimin can have sex without consequences because of abortion, and other forms of birth control. “variety is the spice of life”, & “why buy the cow if your’e gettin’ the milk for free”? think those age old sayings have anything to do with it? wt*? wimin thought they were “liberatin’” themselves with abortion and other forms of birth control, but all they do now is hate & complain about the men who won’t make commitments. There’s a reason our amazing founding fathers didn’t give the vote to wimin......
I doubt he would have won either, but I don’t doubt that Newt would have stood up to Obama, exposed his lies, questioned his handling of Benghazi and F&F, explained to the American people what effect Obamacare and the taxageddon would have on them, and challenged Obama over and over again.
I believe that a lot of Catholics were afraid of having a Mormon for president. A lot of people believe that Mormons are not Christians.
When ALL THE VOTES are counted, Romney will do better than McCain. There are millions of votes that need to be added to these totals. I don’t understand why people continue to use these interim numbers. Only 69% of CA’s vote has been reported, 55% of WA, etc. Romney will go over 60 million easily. Obama will be closer to 65 million.
THANK GOD neither state is actually in play.
What a shock... basket case Californians can't even count votes.
hehehe... yes, in the macro view, the US has been a steady march to socialism... since women started voting! shhhh! (don't tell my wife!)
I have two sons, in prime potential marrying age (24,22). There is a lot of truth to what you say. There are certainly under NO "biological urges pressure" to get married.
Ah, yes. Blame those that refused to sell their principals, they didn't cave in and so still have their principals unlike those who did and retained nothing.
Overlook the simple fact that it makes no sense to claim throwing a socialist out of office by electing a socialist to replace him.
Ignore the simple fact that Romney was not a vote for something, but against something; and you always get better support being for something than you do against.
Men also don't want to get married to women under the control of feminism, which is a sort of magic that turns princesses into frogs.
McCain LOST (in large part) because of Palin and because he dropped the ball when the marked crashed and the Dems turned out hard in reaction to Bush/Cheney.
Ask anyone - heck even Rove and Savage knocked her afterwards. There’s a reason why Palin didn’t run - she knew she’d get crushed.
Fraud is only half of the equation.
Conservatives who refused to vote for Romney are the other factor.
I emphasise the fraud because that is the factor we’ve been unwilling to fight.
Conservatives don’t like these dirty battles and are scared to death of the race card.
The ONLY reason to oppose Voter ID is to encourage vote fraud.
98% of blacks in Ohio voted Obama, and they were 18% of the electorate.
33% of WHITES voted for Obama. Can we call them RACE TRAITORS, like blacks did to my black friend that supported Romney???
Or is that just too politically-incorrect?
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.