[Strategerist]

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.

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.

[albie]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[ArcadeQuarters]

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.

[9YearLurker]

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.

[txrangerette]

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”.

[gandalftb]

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......

[Just mythoughts]

bttt I did not and still do not like Romney's brand of politics, but I did drag my sick body out and vote for him. Unless or until the charitable arm of the DNC, the JonStewart media is mandated to report the news instead of making the news liberalism is here to stay.

[Wuli]

more holes in the “Evangelicals didn’t show up” scapegoat theme

[what's up]

if that was true, that would have shown up in the Bible Belt states.

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.

[Synthesist]

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 haven’t 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 couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the very conservative Fleming.

Reference links to the LA SoS site for the 2012 election:

http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/11062012/11062012_46972.html

http://staticresults.sos.louisiana.gov/11062012/11062012_46257.html