Posted on 11/08/2012 11:55:22 AM PST by Arthurio
Mitt Romney had planned to celebrate his election as the nation’s 45th president with an eight-minute fireworks display over Boston Harbor.
The same company that does some of the illuminations for Boston’s Fourth of July celebration was poised to ignite fireworks within view of Romney’s party at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center to celebrate a win over President Obama.
A permit filed with the City of Boston said the detonation could occur any time between 7 p.m. Tuesday, just after the first polls closed, and 12:30 a.m. Wednesday, which ended up being just before Romney conceded the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
“Exit polling showed that 42% of ALL VOTERS considered Obama’s performance during Sandy as a SIGNIFICANT factor in their voting decision.”
That is BS; no way un/underemployed people living on ramen noodles gave this a second thought. The storm was used by Obama’s media to distract attention from his poor performance; they’ve been doing it for years now. Americans are very stupid, but they wise up after four years of misery; Romney lost because he couldn’t convince enough Americans that life would improve with him in the White House. Obama convinced enough that the freebies would keep rolling in, and wealthier people would foot the bill.
Also, a massive number of ballots were cast before Sandy ever hit.
This is how the Republicans have to win going forward; start hosting events in the weeks leading up to an election where for the price of admission guests are given a warm meal and an absentee ballot. The turnout on Election Day probably wasn’t as critical to Obama as it was for Repubs; rather than have talking heads blathering about “Republicans voting on their way home after work on Election Day, the Repubs should just have as many votes in as possible weeks before.
i disagree. the polls had it dead even.
We need to stop blaming the electorate. The electorate is what it is. If evangelicals didn’t vote, then it is up to the GOP and the nominee to provide a reason for the electorate to vote for them, not simply “vote for me to stop the other guy”. That is just negative campaigning and that only depresses votes, it doesn’t encourage them. The GOP has been successful by enlarging the voting pool. Reagan did it with the Reagan Democrats, and Gingrich did it with the Contract With America. Today, the only party trying to do it is the Tea Party.
Democrats have this figured out. They only need 70% of hispanics and Asians, 90% of blacks, and 40% of white (with 55% being women) and they get 51%. They got the ground game down cold and keep pushing this until they hit their early voting marks along these lines. They target their voting base and provide incentives to get them to vote. Their incentives are essentially bribes involving govt. handouts. It’s a disaster for the country, but it works to win elections.
We don’t have to provide govt. bribes, but we better start figuring out exactly what we need to do to get our voters to the polls, and more importantly, eat into those percentages above that the democrats depend on. If we don’t we will never win the presidency again. Blaming the electorate for not voting “against” the guy we don’t like is not going to win us anything.
“Honestly, I don’t think we will ever have another GOP President.”
I am sorry to say I think you are right!
Couldn’t agree more. This nation is finished as a world leader. Half the country decided to commit suicide.
It’s not so simple, Weird.
Look where Romney did win big. Bible belt. A reason for that, huh?
Oh, there might be, even one as “conservative” as Mitt. He or she will look like the blue dog Democrat of yesteryear.
Never mind the Catholic vote (50% for 0), particularly hispanic Catholic (80% for 0), Jewish vote (70% for 0), etc. They are already the enemy, electorally speaking. The Evangelicals ARE on our side, and could have pulled us up over the edge.
Weird, is there even a definitive chart of the segments that went for each party (and for third party)? With Obama punking the Catholic church the way he did, and all the bristling about it that took place in the pulpits the Sunday prior to election day, are you saying the proportion went UP from 2008?
There are huge swathes of non/irregular-attendee Catholics who are almost entirely liberal, some of whom applauded Obama's attack on the Church.
We'll see in a few months I guess what the exact tallies are.
That’s WORSE than 2008 I think (I mean more for the Bummer, is worse).
Losing their religion.
I read that white Catholics voted 60% for Romney (which still isn't much). The mealy-mouthed bishops WANT the marxist peasants of Mexico to come because they think it will give them more money in the basket and butts in the pews. They don't realize that most of those people don't attend, and they definitely don't give money to the Church because in Mexico, the government historically looks after the upkeep of church buildings.
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.