Skip to comments.Romney Received 170,000 More Bible Belt Votes (raw totals counted so far) than McCain (Vanity)
Posted on 11/09/2012 6:30:28 AM PST by Strategerist
Simply based on CNN raw totals counted so far (no projection for votes not counted) Romney has 18,573,603 votes from Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tenessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
McCain had 18,402,511 in those states. By the way, in 2004 Bush had 17,746,072 votes in those states.
Obviously there is no official definition of "Bible Belt" and PARTS of many other states would fit (Virginia, Colorado Springs, southern Indiana, etc.), and PARTS of the states I included as "Bible Belt" are definitely not full of Evangelicals.
Obviously the voting age population has grown over time in these states (though arguably most of that is Hispanics, not white Evangelicals); if you account for that based on US Census Data, and also that not all the votes are counted (one thing that is helpful is all of these states have almost all of their votes counted already) Romney would have lost less than 1% of the votes McCain had; compared to Bush it's about 3%, but most of that is a decline in Texas (obviously that Bush was from Texas greatly boosted his totals there relative to Romney, and McCain as well.)
There are two possibilities for the Republicans to win the Presidency again:
1) Figure out how to appeal to some or all of the following: Hispanics, Blacks, young people, single women, and the non-religious.
2) Figure out how to get more old white social conservatives to turn out.
I think it's pretty clear which one has a chance of working.
The only option is “1”. The hispanics, blacks etc will soon outnumber us because their birth rates are 5x’s what white’s are. Also, the dems continue to push them into welfare programs and discourage individualism. It works and has been working for 50 years.
There is a third one:
3)Eliminate the vote fraud in those precincts where we all know that it is taking place. And part of that is to eliminate early voting.
Women don’t want their kids to grow up surrounded by drug gangs imported from Mexico and they want schools that actually teach kids instead of warehousing them while unions walk away with the money. Many young people care about fiscal sanity because they will be here for the collapse, unlike some who are older. If we communicate better, we could gain in both those demographics.
Good work. How about the other states? I realize there are still votes outstanding, but the more the GOP vote shortages aren’t in the bible belt, red, or blue states, the more they’ve got to be in the purple ones—which would make it look significantly more suspicious.
In terms of missing raw percentage of votes not counted, California, New York, Arizona, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon are the worst offenders. For Washington and Oregon I presume it’s mail-in voting. Sandy probably affected New York. I imagine it’s logistically hard to count votes in Alaska. And I assume California is just huge and incompetent.
California only has 70% counted and much of that appears to be from the Inland Empire - that alone is probably most of the fictional Romney/McCain Gap.
Adjusting for votes not counted, the TRUE declines in votes for Romney compared to McCain(more than 5%) occured in Alaska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
No Palin running, and Sandy account for the first three. I guess if one is desperate to cling to the “Romney lost votes because he’s a RINO” meme you can point to 6% declines in Oklahoma and Wyoming, but obviously that ended up making no EV difference.
However in most states the Romney vote was higher than McCain, of course.
Early voting and computerized voting has been the key to successful fraud. That is the reason at each campaign stop the dem sheeple are told to EARLY VOTE. They don’t just mention it. They demand that people on their side early vote.
It is key.
Especially when one considers that the fringe states PA, MN and MI over performed for Romney, while the swing states NH, CO, FL, VA, IA and WI all underperformed.
So, the places the Obama campaign ran all their negative commericals brought down turnout?
Yes, that is Poltiics 101.
Those numbers also don’t seem to suggest more systemic cheating than the usual from the Dems, though of course it could (and presumably would) be done subtly.
West VA is also a Bible belt state. How did Romney’s vote compare to McCain’s in WV?
While I’m at it, let me thank you for your analysis, but at the same time I think another factor in the Bible belt states vote should be considered.
What is it ABOUT Bible belt state voters that makes them the most anti Obama in the nation? Because that imo is the key. And I ask this because what I see in their votes for Mitt Romney is an intense, INTENSE anti Obama sentiment. They have had nearly 4 yrs to see their worst fears confirmed in regards to Obama, so their intensity which was already there in ‘08 has only grown exponentially.
And in correlation they are quite REPUBLICAN, and they intensely dislike all leftists not just Obama. I include this point because the left propaganda machine always wants to pretend that they dislike Obama because he is black.
It’s clear they didn’t let Mitt Romney’s moderate background or Mormonism influence them to “stay home” relative to their McCain votes in ‘08, so there I agree with your analysis.
But taking it a step beyond, I believe you have to factor in the degree of their resistance to leftists and the direction America is being driven. The degree of it is unparalleled in the country. It makes sense they would not let Mitt’s more moderate background as a Mass. politician or his Mormonism stand in the way of their resistance.
But the statement that makes is that they are the most intense of the anti Obama Americans, and “ain’t nothin’ gonna stand in their way”.
The numbers seem to show me that IF there were cheating, it was done in the swing states. Does the info not suggest that? And that would make sense to the evil ones who would be willing to make Romney votes disappear. They would want them to disappear across the swath of swing states.
Of all the results I’ve seen that I question, OH and WI happen to stand out for me. There was so much reporting of amazing, mind-boggling turnout in OH, yet Romney couldn’t even get the McCain vote there, when votes were counted? And in WI, voters there FLIPPED by 14% since the Walker recall failed? Really? With Paul Ryan on the ticket and polls having WI in play, you mean to tell me that the 7% by which Walker won disappeared and on top of THAT Obama won by 7%.
These are things that make me wonder...
McCain, 2008 popular vote: 58,319,442
Romney, 2012 popular vote: 58,163,978
4 years of population growth and Romney didn’t draw what McCain did......
So, the places the Obama campaign ran all their negative commericals brought down turnout? Yes, that is Poltiics 101.
When you factor in votes yet to be counted, the turnout in NH, CO, FL, VA, OH, IA and WI was NOT down.
Yes, that's Math 101.
And it contradicts your Politics 101 rule...further making my point.
Do the math.
The total Romney vote isn’t in yet.
But given the economy and Obamacare, the GOP vote should have been significantly higher than in 2008. This one is on Romney and his entire team IMO.
This loss is so humiliating because it was the Republican campaign that lost.
If somebody needed Romney and the Romney team to drag them out to vote against Obama, then their decision is ON THEM.
Sure, they’re responsible. But leadership is getting other people to do the right thing that you want them to do. People are people and elections are won by those who can get other people to vote for them and their cause.
Romney ran a purposely non-ideological campaign. His closing argument before Sandy was a debate in which he avoided talking about Benghazi and instead spent his share of the 90 minutes praising Obama on his foreign policies, attempting to convince voters that he’d do and have done exactly the same as Obama.
More people don’t like Obamacare than do, but Romney’s ego and record both had him tied up in defending its progenitor, Romneycar, which Romney simply advocated for implementation on a state by state level, rather than Obamacare’s national level. (Though even in Obamacare, the exchanges must be decided and implemented state by state already. In the end, both systems are a path to fully nationalized healthcare and Romney completely lost it as an issue.
As to taxes and economic policy, there was Romney promising that he’d only implement a system that guaranteed those nasty 1%ers pay at least as much as they’re paying now. On energy, he was for his ethanol—his own version of corrupt, crony and inefficient government investment and mandate.
Romney went out of his way to distance himself from the tea party (and the tea party’s natural leader, Sarah Palin). In that sense he virtually didn’t really ask for Middle America’s vote at all.
Oh, and his campaign cronies made themselves rich buying incredibly overpriced TV ads. They botched not only both their major technology initiatives, but along the way they took 40,000 full-day, election-day volunteers away from any productivity and much needed GOTV efforts.
This loss is indeed on the guy in charge. The guy who sent his minions into McCain’s campaign to torpedo Palin (and McCain’s campaign) in 2008, and further used his money to buy the nomination this cycle.
Yes, this loss is very much on Romney indeed.
more holes in the “Evangelicals didn’t show up” scapegoat theme
Not if it was the catholics that didn't show up.
The swing states have large numbers of catholics. It may have been the number of these voters which were down and perhaps didn't want a RINO/Mormon.
Right here on FR there are many who say they didn't vote for Romney. I'd be curious to know if the majority of these were catholic.
There is ZERO evidence that any statistically significant numbers of Republicans didn’t vote for Romney because he was a RINO or Mormon - if that was true, that would have shown up in the Bible Belt states...
After Romney lost the election, I read several opinions that it might have been because he did not get the full support of the conservatives and/or Evangelicals. I figured the best way to test that theory would be to compare his vote count with another republican candidate in my home state of Louisiana. I started by comparing the raw unofficial votes (provisional ballots havent been counted yet, but all precincts have reported) for Romney and the incumbent conservative Republican US Representative John Fleming, who was running in the 4th Congressional District.
Some background info about this district: The newly redrawn 2012 district covers all of western Louisiana except for the southern parishes near the coast. It is deep in the Bible Belt with a large mix of Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics. It is quite conservative. John Fleming won the district easily in the 2010 election and is so popular that no Dem even bothered to run against him in the 2012 election (a little known Libertarian was the only other candidate).
In most parishes within this district, Romney got MORE votes than Fleming, the opposite of what would be expected if conservatives/Evangelicals had turned their back on Romney. So much for that theory!
So where did these extra votes for Romney come from? I suspect that many of them came from Indies and maybe even a few Dems who voted for the moderate RINO Romney instead of the Marxist O, but still couldnt bring themselves to vote for the very conservative Fleming.
Reference links to the LA SoS site for the 2012 election:
thanks for the update on this issue
I keep saying that we all need to tell Romney and his inner circle to do two things
“look at yourselves in the mirror and tell all the pundits to quit pointing fingers at scapegoats outside of the your team & the RNC”
the only thing the pundits are doing is getting all kinds of different Conservatives to point fingers at each other
even if they are “Conservative” pundits maybe that’s what they are trying to do in the first place