Skip to comments.Low turnout--evangelicals sat it out?
Posted on 11/08/2012 11:29:45 AM PST by fifedom
Romney may underperform (or barely match) in turnout the listless McCain in 2008. According to exit polls Romney won white evangelicals by a four-to-one marginas high or higher than George W. Bush in 2004. Could it have been that many evangelicals couldnt bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, and simply stayed home?
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Wait, the turnout was what?! As the numbers continue to come into focus (and the final vote tally is still days or weeks away), the fact that Romney may underperform (or barely match) the listless McCain in 2008 is the real shocker of the election. Maybe we should have just run McCain/Palin again. Obamas vote total will be down something like six to eight million from his 2008 total; it is unprecedented for a president to be re-elected without adding to his vote total from the first election. Hardly a vote of confidence.
The white vote, it turns out, was tepid. If the white vote had turned out to its potential, Romney wins and we wouldnt need to go through the current hand-wringing about whether the GOP needs to seek amnesty from Latinos. Whats going on here? Keep two factoids in mind. First, according to exit polls Romney won white evangelicals by a four-to-one marginas high or higher than George W. Bush in 2004. But second, recall Karl Roves theory after the 2000 election that Bushs missing majority in that train-wreck election was the 3 million or so evangelicals who stayed home and didnt vote, possibly because they were put off by the late DUI news about Bush. Finding and (successfully) turning out those voters became the key to Bushs increased margin of victory in 2004.
Its going to be a while before we know better whether the total potential evangelical vote didnt turn out for Romney, and if not, why. Could it have been that many evangelicals couldnt bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, and simply stayed home? I distinctly recall polling data from back in 2008 that found as many as 20 percent of voters said they wouldnt vote for a Mormon (versus only about 1 or 2 percent for a black or a Jew), and I wondered whether those 20 percent were un- or anti-religious liberals who wouldnt vote for a Republican in any case, or whether they were theologically conservative evangelicals who are uncomfortable with heterodox Mormon doctrine? Ive had numerous conversations with serious evangelical friends over the last couple of years who all said of course Ill vote for Romney because I cant stand Obama, but they admitted having doubts about it. My self-selecting sample are mostly intellectual and politically-engaged evangelicals; what about the kind of evangelical that doesnt like or follow politics closely? Keep in mind that a lot of evangelicals eschew politics as a this-worldly dominion best left alone: the City of Man versus City of God.
Sean Trende doesnt think so. He thinks rural whites in Ohio just didnt turn out. Neither does AllahPundit, who offers some exit poll numbers. But Charlie Martin thinks maybe so. And see David Mason in the Washington Post today:
Evangelical America has been flogging Mormonism as Satans own retail outlet for decades. But the suddenly ubiquitous appearances of the word cult on the eleven oclock news and in ostensibly serious political conversations in the early primary days gave legitimacy on the national stage to the characterization of me as a glassy-eyed, reclusive loon from whom the neighborhood alley cats run in fear.
One thing for sure: the major media and establishment political analysts wont touch this with a ten-foot pole.
Could it have been that many evangelicals couldnt bring themselves to vote for a Mormon,
I am so sick and tired of this question....This is the correct question.......COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT MANY EVANGELICALS COULDN’T BRING THEMSELVES TO VOTE FOR A LYING SACK OF CRAP LIBERAL ROMNEY?????? It had nothing to do with Mormonism. I am neither Mormon or Evangelical.
That Obama did so poorly compared to 2008 is what makes this loss so much more depressing. Victory was clearly there for the taking, yet our side didn’t turn out to it’s potential, and we didn’t turn enough of Obama’s white voters who did actually vote.
Strangely I have talked to a number of religious black people who said they were not going to vote for president this time because they did not like either candidate. I'm not sure if there was a missing number of black voters or if they were just blowing smoke.
Did the presidential vote numbers come out the same as the other races?
I just read things indicating the Evangelical turnout was as high as ever, now it is being doubted again? Does anyone actually KNOW or is this based on “exit polls” again or what?
Maybe we all need to let this simmer for awhile until some real number crunching can go on. It seems the GOP/Conservative numbers crunchers are getting their AZ!Z kicked by Lib numbers crunchers....so let’s give it a while to figure things out.
If voting against Obama isn’t enough to get Evangelicals off their asses and to the polls, what is?
I say screw ‘em as a voting bloc.
In '08, the G.O.P.e. handed us a s### sandwich and said, " here's a very nice sandwich, go ahead, eat it, you'll like it".
So in 2012, they hand us another s### sandwich and tell us, "you'll like this one much better, for you see, this time, it's on toast"!
It’s most likely not even true, just as it wasn’t after McCain. I notice that the people who plainly said they wouldn’t vote for Romney-the libertarian types-aren’t being mentioned.
I guess next time they’ll skip the bread and just feed us the s###.
Nope. Not at all......
Your table only shows the percentages among people who voted. It does not say what fraction of each group actually turned out to vote. The original article makes it clear that Romney did well among evangelicals who actually did vote.
Evangelicals were a slightly larger part of the 2012 electorate than in 2008. The raw numbers were down, but that was true across the board in pretty much all subgroups.
Basically, the republicans said to conservatives, “Screw you. We don’t need your input. We don’t support your values. You embarrass us. Go away. We don’t need you to win.”
Since the republicans chose to run Romney, they have no one but themselves to blame for the loss.
Message to republicans, if you want conservative support, run a real conservative!
Did fewer numbers of Evangelicals over all turn out to vote? 80% of those Evangelicals who voted on the presidential race does not take into account Evangelicals who stayed home or only voted down ticket, the latter numbers are the relevant numbers.
I should have read the rest of the replies, before replying.
Already been said by the republican party. This "battered wife" just left the abuser and said, "screw someone else."
Really? With a question like this "Could it have been that many evangelicals couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, and simply stayed home?" it looked like another "Blame Christians First" article.
Is your post # 1 part of the article? Naturally I didn't click the link. And since you posted such a short incomplete excerpt, I figured there wasn't anything to read anyway.
What difference does it make? Are YOU assuming Christians are responsible for Romney getting fewer votes than McCain? And if you care to notice - the chart is a Pew Research Groups chart. And if was Ralph Reed’s? Should we just throuw it out, because - after all - he’s one of them evangelicals?
And how do YOU explain that the latest numbers indicate Obama (2012) got fewer (8 million fewer) votes than Obama (2008)?
I credit Evangelicals. If only there were more of us. If only the GOP didn’t kick us to the curb.
Could it be that the Romney’s strategy of ignoring conservatives by chasing
moderates and independents on both sides was a failed strategy?
Me thinks so.
This is all in this Rino’s imagination. He does not even offer evangelical voting stats to base this rant upon.
When you run a progressive liberal against a progressive liberal, it might turn some people off. The GOP knew that when they ran Mittens. They knew Obamacare was based on Romneycare andthat Americans rejected Obamacare (a big economic issue).
It’s over for the two party system now. We have a socialist health care system that has total control over life and death. We have a police state/KGB rapidly coming of age and naming Americans their enemy. We have an open system of liberal racism. From the looks of Europe, political competitions are based on teams of disgusting elitists fighting to eat the white corpse of the West they slayed.
Is Romney more liberal than McCain? That is a darn good question. I’m late for an appointment, but when I get a chance, I’ll put some thought into that and get back to you.
Well, it’s clear that when the evangelicals do vote, they vote strongly for conservatives. I realize that Free Republic is a conservative Catholic site, but maybe the bigger question is “What are the numbers for Catholic voters?”
Well, thus far the best source I've found that at least provides indicators as to how many Evangelicals voted is Pew Forum's exit polls: How the Faithful Voted: 2012 Preliminary Analysis
Per Pew Forum's exit polls, were white Evangelicals a greater part of the 2012 voting block vs. 2008 and 2004? Or less?
Answer? Well, I just crunched the rough #s based upon Pew Forum's exit polls...and more -- not less -- white Evangelicals voted in 2012...than either in 2008 or 2004.
It looks like almost 31 million white Evangelicals voted in 2012; compared to about 30 million in 2008, and compared to about 26 & 1/4 million in 2004.
How did white Evangelicals compare to other voter segments...in staying home or not?
Answer: They were 24% of the voting block in 2012; 23% in 2008; 21% in 2004.
Which religious voter groups turned out significantly less in 2012? (a) OTHER white Protestants -- not Evangelicals; (b) white Catholics
Per Pew Forum white Protestants dropped from 42% of the pie in 2008 to 39% in 2012...keep in mind, tho, that the mainline denominations are "aging" & unless a Dem "resurrects" a dead voter, they don't vote from the grave...
Still, 42% of about 132,654 (2008) vs. 39% of about 128 million is a drop-off of over 4 million voters!
Also, white Catholics dropped from 19% in 2008 to 18% in 2012...Because the voter pool was smaller in 2012, that's about 2 million LESS white Catholics turning out...(I estimate a drop from just over 25 million to just over 23 million)...obviously some of them died and weren't replaced by younger Catholic voters.
Note also that Pew Forum's exit polling showed that more white Evangelicals, %-wise, voted for Romney than even Mormons! Pew Forum says the breakdowns were 79-20% by white Evangelicals; and 78-21% by Lds!
CNN exit polls for votes by white Evangelicals were similar (78-21% Romney)
White Catholics voted Romney 59-40%...but because of Latino Catholics, the overall Catholic vote went to Obama (50-48%)
ONLY one word can be used to express this situation..
DUUUUUUUUUUUGGH!.. (you buy them books they eat the pages)..
**note; I'm joining a party that don't have morons in charge of it..
Most of the Evangelicals are in states Romney won. Many voted for him.
Ohio vote total right here.
Romney didn’t lose by much, so I doubt evangelicals were the real reason. Romney only lost by a little over 107,000 votes. Gary Johnson peeled off 47,000. Some more were peeled off with fraud.
See post #29...
Because of the Hispanic vote for Obama (71-27%), latino Catholics shifted the overall Catholic vote...White Catholics voted Romney 59-40%...overall Catholic vote was 50-48% Obama...
But it appears white Catholics dropped their turnout by about 2 million voters...
I've seen one U.S. map from yesterday that had interesting red and blue dots by regional areas...was posted by a Mormon...
The only place it appeared where an Evangelical drop-off occurred that allowed a sudden swath of blue to appear was the Deep South.
That blue swath runs from Louisiana to North Carolina...and seemed to be most prominent in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.
Now, those are states where voters knew that Romney would win quite handily...so they didn't see their votes as "key." And...it didn't effect a single electoral vote ... IOW I didn't see that same blue swath show up in Florida...except for a few dots toward the inland swamps in furthest south Florida...(NW of Miami)
I am so sick and tired of this question....This is the correct question.......COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT MANY EVANGELICALS COULDNT BRING THEMSELVES TO VOTE FOR A LYING SACK OF CRAP LIBERAL ROMNEY??????
I know someone who attends "The Cowboy Church" (a subsidiary of the Southern Baptist Convention, IIRC)..
That person voted for Gary Johnson..
I was incredulous..A Baptist voting for legalized drugs and prostitution, pro choice..
Romney won white evangelicals by a four-to-one margin
Mormons voted for Willard by the same margin...about 4 to 1...
Those extra Mormons who didnt vote for Willard are obviously BIGOTS...
Thanks. I suspected it was an anti-Christian rino kook rant. I’ve seen a few of them since the election.
When the rinos lose, it’s time for the pin the tail on the evangelical Christian game. They had Palin to blame last time.
They are also blaming the only successful aspect of politics that have enpowered the GOP - the Tea Party.
Could it be voter fraud, tampering with electronic voting machines, lost ballots?
It’s got to be anti-Mormon bigotry.
What a bunch of whiney, cry baby martyrs.
Too bad, so sad. The martyr complex does not wear well on Mormons with THEIR history.
And I don’t know of a person who objected to Mitt’s religion as much as his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, Romneycare, big government past policies, and who believe for a minute he really changed his position.
Well, I am an Evangelical, and you are exactly right. It wasn't his Mormonism.
Hevk if even the Mormonbs think Willard is stinko...
why are you complaining about other religions ???
This Christian didnt vote for Willard either...
Me and the Mormons agree...
stranger things have happened...
Christians got fed to the lions in Nero's day and it looks like nothing has changed in 2,000 years.
Only now they call it *throwing them under the bus*.
I don't believe that FR is a conservative Catholic site. I don't recall that any denominational affiliation has ever been given. Intentionally so, if my guess is right.
Pinging JR just to clear it up.
That's right, Freepers would rather not vote for Romney over his Mormon faith than stop a man who advocates infanticide and the fundamental transformation of America.
Traitorous cowards every one of them. If you didn't vote Romney, I put you in the same group.
Check out the religious section of FR. Look at the thread titles. If a non-Catholic should post to one of the rare non-Catholic threads, the “all you non-Catholic Christians bow down to the Pope and Mary,” and “the RCC is the only true church,” etc., comes barging in.
Yes the first post is the article.
If it's an "excerpt only" source, it's against F.R. posting rules to post the entire article in a reply, you're flirting with an infringement law suit against F.R. to do so.
If it's not an "excerpt only" source, why not post the entire article where it belongs?
Oh boy do I know that. Been there, done that.
I understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t think it’s an official position.
Romney advocates infanticide and the fundamental transformation of America, himself.
obama and Romney are two peas in a pod ideologically and politically. The only difference is in the implementation of their plans. Romney is willing to go slower and pander to the conservatives in the meantime to get their support.
And I can't believe what I am about to do here, because I never thought in a million years that I'd find anything even remotely positive sounding to say about obama, but to his credit, at least he's been up front and honest to some degree about what he plans to do.
OK, I’m back. And (drumroll, please)
I think Mitt Romney is more liberal than John McCain.
Romney’s record in Massachussetts was pro-gay, pro-abortion. But he did balance their budget and I believe has better conservative values than McCain.
McCain collaborated with too many libs in the Senate. He is famous for “reaching accross the aisle”. Yet his experience would have done the country a world of good.
Either way, Mitt or McCain would have been a million times better for our Country than Obozo is. Even Hillary would have done far less damage than B. Hussein.
(As if Romney was "anti-infanticide"...he told CBS News Aug. 27, 2012 that he favored dismembering pre-borns whose mom either have a life OR HEALTH matter..."health" being the exact same huge loophole Roe vs. Wade used in 1973)
Dec of 2007 Romney told Katie Couric that parents could either give up their embryos for adoption -- or for "research."
Now you may disgrace yourself and call such embryos as "unliving" or something, but remember, Jesus was once one...
Hence, you -- and almost 60 million others -- are now officially in the "pro-abort" camp...'cause you voted for one!!!
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.