Posted on 11/08/2012 7:35:11 AM PST by LdSentinal
One of the more intriguing narratives for election 2012 was proposed by political scientist Brendan Nyhan fairly early on: that it was "Bizarro 2004." The parallels to that year certainly were eerie: An incumbent adored by his base but with middling approval ratings nationally faces off against an uncharismatic, wishy-washy official from Massachusetts. The race is tight during the summer until the president breaks open a significant lead after his convention. Then, after a tepid first debate for the incumbent, the contest tightens, bringing the opposition tantalizingly close to a win, but not quite close enough.
The Election Day returns actually continued the similarities. George W. Bush won by 2.4 percent of the popular vote, which is probably about what Obama’s victory margin will be once all the ballots are counted. Republicans in 2004 won some surprising Senate seats, and picked up a handful of House seats as well. The GOP was cheered, claiming a broad mandate as a result of voters’ decision to ratify clear, unified Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since 1928. As Bush famously put it, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I really, really hate to say this (I really do) but I know a lot of evangelicals and the Mormon thing kept them from voting or they voted Johnson or Goode.
Don’t blame me. I gave them heck. I told them not voting for the Mormon who shared our ideals would give us the Muslim who despised them. But my guess is many of the missing voters “could not” pull the lever for a mormon.
The article is an opinion piece with no substantiation in it or footnoted by it. Unless the author knows every evangelical personally and has personal knowledge that all the evangelicals stayed home and didn’t vote then he is just playing the blame game. WHICH ISN’T HELPING
forget it....
they will be the first to sink in this quagmire and maybe I'll give them a little push...
Discarded? If so are you telling me the Democrats are so much smarter than Republicans that they can get away with it?
Are you saying Republican poll watchers are children, or retarded?
Are you saying Democrats have some magic they use to discard votes without the opposition knowing about it?
Explain how the Democrats manage to do all this, and why can’t Republicans do the same thing?
I think it is also possible some have just gotten fed up and given up on elections mattering.
Also a lot of us probably underestimated the long term effects of the Financial Meltdown on the national Republican brand, fair or not. Romney’s economic image was not enough to change that dynamic.
Someone will have to come along to make them BELIEVE again...and I have no idea who that is, or if they exist. And to be honest, things never really DO change much.
Rove and Bush knew how to go into those rural communities and speak to them. Bush was able to walk the line between talking in a way that appeals to evangelicals, without turning off the moderates. Romney was trying to do the opposite. Speak to moderates without turning off the evangelicals (this could also relate to the Mormon factor). I thought anti Obama thoughts would help overcome this, that Romney had done enough, but it seems not.
The truth is, Bush was a talented campaigner that flew under the radar due to his manner. I remember reading Bill Clinton’s thoughts about Bush in 2000 when Bush was speaking in Iowa..this was really early on...and Clinton said he saw how good Bush with the crowd “he gets it”.
That style works with the Right and the middle. Obama found something that turned non likely voters out, but how many Obama’s do the Dems have....the GOP obviously didn’t have another Bush lying around (this is in terms of campaigning, not governing). And, things change too, you can’t really duplicate campaigns...they all have their own story, feel and point in history.
Unfortunately, I fear the GOP will decide to go LEFT to win it.
For all the talk of Bush being TOO Right and Romney portrayed as right be the MSM, they were barely in the middle.
The biggest win for the Left and MSM was the ability to define what true Left and right are. When Romney can be said to be too extreme on the Right....reality is dead.
bump
“The Case of the Missing White Voters (7 Millions White Voters Stayed Home)”
I’m wondering just how many of these were white Christians and white Evangelicals who just could not vote for Romney because of his Mormonism — even though they might be reluctant to state as much openly...
This was a serious problem and something many were unwilling to talk about during the campaign. Yes, it did receive a little lip service, but I sense that there were undercurrents here not visible on the surface that affected the final outcome.
It’s you and the other “pragmatists” fault.
If you drew the line in the sand, and meant it, they would not attempt to foist off a Democrat-in-Republican-Clothing like Romney.
This is not about ideological “purity.”
Romney was a disgusting man who lied and slandered actual conservatives.
>>Many people saw through the white washed tomb of Romney’s exterior into the rotted core of corruption and death that is his soul.<<
I must say, you have a flair for the melodramatic.
On Tuesday morning, it was reported that republican poll watchers were kicked out of Philadelphia precincts and replaced with dem poll watchers. Via court order, the republican poll watchers were allowed back around lunch time. What happened in their absence? In a related story also posted on FR, it is reported that some Philadelphia precincts had an 85 PERCENT TURNOUT. Were the dem poll watchers running dem friendly ballots over and over again in the morning when the republicans were not there?
From reports on Tuesday, turnout in urban and dem friendly areas was reported light to moderate. It was HEAVY in the republican ones. This is not passing the smell test, folks.
No, Romney was a fake.
Did you not read the “truth file” Jim Robinson himself kept on Romney here at FreeRepublic.
The only difference between Romney and Obama is Obama doesn’t lie about being a communist.
Correct. The best we would have gotten from Romney was slowing down the destruction by a nano-second. Perhaps many felt it just wasn’t worth it.
“>>Many people saw through the white washed tomb of Romney’s exterior into the rotted core of corruption and death that is his soul.<<
I must say, you have a flair for the melodramatic.”
I’m quoting a rather bright guy who dealt with other hypocrits of his day -— people who were scrupulous with their appearance and outward, but practiced filthy machniations in the background, just like Romney.
Don’t forget how Romney lied about, well, basically every other Republican running for the nomination.
He’d send out surrogates just at the right time when they were getting momemntum.
Romney’s lie would prove false, but then it was too late, the money was gone, momentum lost.
I am very sad Obama is president, but the only thing to celebrate is Romney is not.
5) if given the choice, voters will pick a real Dem over a fake Dem with an R behind his name....
And just what is he basing that on
I didn’t see any numbers posted in that article or any polls taken
I does he know they stayed home
Where do those numbers come from? Texas doesn’t have a place for race on their voter registration applications.
I hope somebody does an analysis on vote fraud in the coming weeks
It sure as hell seems fishy
Whether enough to get Obama elected is the question
I just read it
The Nielson numbers are telling—there are some signs that a significant number of Americans have “dropped out” of politics.
Republicans need to poll, survey, focus group folks who did not vote. They need to know, not guess, why.
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.