Skip to comments.332,754 Votes Would Have Secured a Romney Victory
Posted on 11/08/2012 1:59:35 PM PST by CreviceTool
Ran across this on Quora: What is the minimum number of people who would have had to change their vote for Romney to have won?
Richard Tabassi, Renaissance Ape, Occasionally Witty Biped
Around 1/3 of a million in the right states. [1,2,3,4] EC 18:Ohio Romney needed 103,520 people to win EC 29:Florida Romney needed 50,869 people to win EC 13: Virginia Romney Needed 111,985 people to win EC 6: Nevada Romney Needed: 66,380 to win
Total: 332,754 to win Electoral College
There might be a combination that get him there in a shorter amount that I am not seeing yet, will update when I have time to crunch more numbers.
Election results (huffingtonpost.com) Ohio Election results (huffingtonpost.com) Florida Election results (huffingtonpost.com) Virginia Election results (huffingtonpost.com) Nevada
448,875 in Michigan.
Easily all covered by small amounts of election fraud / fake people voting here and there. Imagine that?
Thug Dems usually can’t win an election on their own merrits.
GOP candidates need to go for the jugular - bring that Gun to the Knife Fight! We once again were too nice. My 2 cents.
The reason Romney lost was RUSH announced that he’d win by a landlslide, so the “evangelicals” decided since it was in the bag, they didn’t need to vote.
RUSH was WRONG. He needs to take ownership of his part in the failed election. He blames you all.
Here in MN 80% of us vote, why didn’t you vote????
All around weird numbers in Michigan. It sucks to be stuck with stupidcow again I do think its funny that she got 171,091 more votes than Obama.
Another oddity is the fact that the union is patting themselves on the back for re-electing Obama but they apparently voted against their own constitutional amendments. Prop 2 would have given them the power to veto the state legislature and prop 4 would have allowed them to seize union dues from people not represented by the union.
I knew Hoekstra was going to lose (likely something Hoekstra already knew) when I received an Election Day invite his Victory Party at Peppino’s Restaurant in Grand Rapids. Hardly the venue for a successful Senate campaign.
So the thugdems didn’t need to steal a huge number, then.
“Actually Rush warned way back in December that nominating moderate Mitt would lose the election.”
bull. On Monday 11/5 and Tuesday 11/6 Rush announded that Romney would win by a landslide.
What he said directly before the election mattered.
RUSH BLEW IT. and the lazy “evangelicals’ listened to him.
We can use this in four years.
Hoekstra ran an awfully bland nearly invisible campaign. Its too bad because he would have been a great asset on the defense and security front. In the 7th district, Walberg ran a surprisingly aggressive against an invisible democrat.
It seems to confirm what I said all along. The democrats didn’t try to make gains in Michigan but played pure defense.
The “lazy evangelicals” do their own thinking.
Rush was pushing Romney just like I was and I could never stand Romney.
Using the NY Times vote totals, I get an even smaller number:
Romney needed 51, 940 votes to win Floridas 29 electoral college votes; he needed 103,520 people to win Ohios 18 electoral votes; he needed 115,911 people to win Virginias 13 electoral votes; he needed 40,660 to win New Hampshires 4 EVs.
Total: 312,041 to win the Electoral College
This amounts to 0.263 percent of all votes cast for Obama and Romney. Does an election in which the result could have been reversed by roughly 1/4 of 1 percent of the electorate voting differently sound like a “mandate” to you? It’s comical to see progressives leap to assure us Obama has a mandate to raise taxes, implement Obamacare etc. based on such weak election results.
There you go...an even smaller number. Might even be smaller when all votes are tallied in the states over the next 30 days.
WE NEED GET THIS INFORMATION INTO THE CONSERVATIVE ECHO CHAMBER!
Ohio, Florida, VA yeah...but finding another 66,000 votes in Nevada would have been very difficult...minus the Mormon church driving people to the polls the way black churches drive their members to the polls...(Nevada is 8% Lds & has some broader connections via the Boy Scouts)
If you take the vote difference in these states, divide each by half, and subtract one from Obama and add one vote to Romney in each state, it only takes the following number to put Romney at 272 Electoral votes.
I failed one adjustment, so the number would be 179,938 not 179,934.
I also heard Rush emphasize how important turnout was going to be with this particular election. Guess they had turned off their radio by then?
Anyone who chose to not vote in THIS election because of something they heard on the radio cannot blame anyone but themselves.
And if the dog hadn’t stopped to poop, he would have caught the rabbit.
Yeah, they think they would rather have obama.
That assumes you can SWITCH an obama to a Romney. Won't happen in most cases. So, you still have to have 300,000+ more Romney votes.
I calculate the following:
Fl 46,666 diff 29
Va 100,499 13
OH 107,421 18
NH 40,421 4/64 + 206=270
147.415 vote change from obama to Romney
Few enough votes that there is no doubt in my mind that fraud made the difference.
I think we just witnessed the democrat machine step beyond manufacturing dem votes to also destroying R votes. I know our absentee ballots didn’t make it in PA because I ended up being here and went to check at the polls, but there is much more to it than that.
My first “Oh Sh**” moment of the night was when they put up the early/absentee votes with the 1% precincts reporting under it. OH was listed as having a near 60:40 split. The difference was 18.5% I think which went against everything we had heard. I remembered that Rasmussen repeatedly said this was 40% of the vote and I really panicked. Then I calculated the actual # of votes as being about 20% of 2008s vote. This too made little sense b/c all the estimates were 30-40% but it at least made me think we had a better chance to catch up.
Then when I heard that Romney got less votes than McCain in OH and PA it really made me think that there might have been an effort to destroy the early votes from Republican areas. The reported party breakdown of early votes in OH according to Bloomberg: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-06/the-early-election-results-captured-by-democratic-microtargeters was 50D 36R 14I. The only way this turns into a near 59:40 breakdown is if the Indies went about 70:30 to O or many R’s voted for O which the polls don’t seem to bear out. The only other explanation I can think of is if only the early voting was shown and absentees were much more favorable but not listed ? The actual # reported on Bloomberg was 1,442,536 which was about 27% or so. Perhaps I can find the breakdown of absentee vs early votes somewhere, anyone have that info ?
In surrounding states like IN, KY, WV Romney did much better than McCain by percentage and generated more votes overall. Either the negative/mostly untrue ads suppressed our voters or someone suppressed their actual votes. I just can’t believe Romney/Ryan with 4 yrs of Obama turned out fewer R voters than McCain in these states.
Maybe a group of concerned citizens could be assembled to inspect the voting anomalies of every county within known swing states?
Okay, very good.
To some extent or another, you’re right.
Not every vote is a die-hard vote, but enough where it would be hard to get half.
It would take an extreme situation to do it.
You know, when I made that last post, I switched to thinking of the whole body of the vote. Instead we were simply addressing the difference in vote, a small percentage.
Flipping half those is not really impossible.
The electoral college system means you have to win votes in the swing states. You can pile up large majorities in the states you'd win anyway and it doesn't help you in the electoral college.
Absolutely, 100% correct, as Rush so often is. True to form, the media and other concern trolls are saying that the Republicans keep losing because they keep nominating far right guys like McCain and Romney. Yes, that’s the conventional wisdom that’s gathering out there.
Voter fraud. It’s big.
Only 332,754 Votes? A lesson for the future. If every FReeper had voted more than once we would of had it!
Please provide the documented evidence the lazy "evangelicals' listened to Rush. Maybe you have rushed to judgment?
And 18 more points would have secured a Jacksonville victory tonight.
>> Total: 332,754 to win Electoral College
>> 448,875 in Michigan.
Half of that if votes for Obama swung in Romney’s favor.
This was a very close election arguably with enough error/fraud to consider it an electoral tie.
Definitely concerned about Obama and Reid, but not as concerned about the confused voters that believe in Obama’s deceitful message and direction.
We need to reconstruct the GOP and fix the quality of information dispensed through conventional media.
The dems only care about the swing states that both parties need to win.
It really didn’t take a lot to take what they needed to win. They were confident it would be done.
We all can sit here and throw blame around, but the dems have it down to an art and we won’t win again unless it is addressed.
My best guess is that we will not win again.
The way the dems operate, they merely meet our turnout and win with their fraud machine.
Turnout is always important, but unfortunately, they have that covered.
That guy is sooo smart. He is always right just as he says.
He said McCain would win too.
I knew Romney would lose too but I was promoting him as well.
Little moderate toadies like you would have been screeching bloody murder if he or anyone else had said otherwise.
NOW you are saying that you knew Romney would lose but were saying he would win anyway like Rush was in his comments?(to make me happy when I cant stand liberal Romney)
That is downright decetful.
I guess if the RINO party nominated Hillary you would drink that Koolaid too.
So let me try the understand your Rush imaginary world:
Earlier this year he says Romney will lose to O, as you posted.
Then later this year he says all the polls are lies and that Romney will win in a landslide. (so just listen to him.)
Now he says Romney lost because there is no hope too many libs (so just buy Rush 24-7 and buy the products he hawks on his show) .
And you throw stones?
Just tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself.
You were right there attacking anyone who spoke out against Mitt St Jesus.
Reap what you sowed and choke on it.
Wow you really are a deceitful liar with no conscience who will say anything.
Here was my tag for the last few months while you were carrying Romneys water even though now you say you knew he would lose:
We got ALL the Romney is winning in a landslide posts (AKA the polls have been all wrong posts)
The Vote for Romney now or we all die posts
Here is the Obama will declare victory EARLY to make R voters give up post.)
59 posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:47:55 AM by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
we never asked or demanded that those folks who thought they must hold their noses, not do so, *or else*, yet we were attacked for stating the fact that we would no longer be taken for granted on the reservation...
at the same time, anybody that was honest, knew that mittens wouldnt be able to beat the bambam unless he ran a scorched earth campaign and engaged in a street fight, which he didnt appear to be capable of doing, at least not vs a fellow progressive traveler...
and here we are, in hindsight, still being fed moronic talking points that have been proven to be the bunk that we all knew they were, expected to apologize or feel guilty that a homo loving, anti gun, anti CHRIST, advocate of infanticide lost to his big brutha of another mutha...
give it a rest and decide which principles that YOU pissed away on the alter of fear, which undercut our ability to force the hands of the rin-o-p wannabe masters, and how to regain those principles, if they even matter in truth...
But you know what the biggest joke is?
That we got bashed for not carrying water and then later having an utterly contempable character here who admits that he did carry MRs water later accuse you of forcing him to do it.. .. and accuse you of doing the same as he says he did. Is this downright sleazy or what?
You were right there attacking anyone who spoke out against Mitt.
posted on Friday, November 09, 2012 8:39:45 AM by cripplecreek
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.