Posted on 11/13/2012 9:14:41 AM PST by neverdem
Brace yourselves, conservatives. What I’m about to say will hurt, and it should hurt -- and I’m not the first to notice. (Kudos to Rush Limbaugh, who noticed and is hitting this point hard.) Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election not so much because he got fewer votes than Barack Obama but because he got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008.
Additional votes are still coming in, but, as of the time of my writing, Romney received around 57.8 million votes in 2012. In 2008, John McCain received 59.9 million. Romney got over 2 million fewer votes than McCain. And in the final count, he will almost certainly have received considerably fewer votes than McCain.
Obama received 60.6 million votes in 2012, almost 9 million less than he received in 2008. If Romney would have had McCain’s vote total, he would have been much closer in the popular vote and might have even had enough to win the Electoral College. Or, better put, if Mitt Romney had secured just a tiny fraction more votes than John McCain -- as we conservatives were certain he would -- he might have won the presidency.
We know this: Romney won independents by 5 points, and they made up 29% of all voters. McCain didn’t win independents.
What does this really mean? That’s where the hurt comes. It appears to mean that our side lost because we failed to turn out our side. It isn’t so much that the Obama-Axelrod apparatus turned out their side -- though they did -- but that our side failed to...
--snip--
Imagine: If someone had told you that Barack Obama would receive 9 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008, you would have predicted his sure defeat. You would have been wrong. Republicans blew a huge opportunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Fraud is never okay but the small amount that occurs is not enough to win if we GOTV. You keep chasing your tail and sounding like DUmpster and their Diebold machine conspiracy.
I’d rather work on realityh and GOTV like we did in 2010 and for the Walker recall.
I think fraud must be the most plausible explanation. Sure, there are some hard cores that did not vote for Romney, but my impression was that Romney was a far, far superior candidate than was McCain. McCain was every bit as limp on conservative issues as Romney, but McCain ran an even less confrontational campaign than Romney. But it is very, very odd that BOTH McCain AND Romney essentially quit at the very end as if the fix was in.
Sigh. Add yet another author to the incompetent moron brigade.
It's basically mathemetically certain that Romney will have ended up with more votes than McCain.
“That’s where the hurt comes. It appears to mean that our side lost because we failed to turn out our side.”
maybe a simple phrase is apt in this situation
“an echo not a choice”
This comes from Romney’s approach to handling the charge from Obama that so much of the economic ills are from what “he inherited from the previous administration”.
Romney’s response on this was so weak that at the most it only said - “well it wasn’t me either”.
In other words, Romney never forcefully attacked the premise - things were bad because of what Obama inherited.
Failing a forceful attack on that premise, he was not making that much of an example for why Romney.
Just thinkin - opinion not set in stone.
They're certifiable, but they are also a minority of a minority of a minority, and politically irrelevant.
I wonder who all those people standing in long lines voted for. Most of the news I watched showed and talked about the long lines and long waits for people to get in to vote. Where’d those votes go?
Long Lines and Less votes. Does not make sense. Reports from voters was pretty consistent. Nearly all reported much greater turnout than in 2008. Much longer waiting time than in 2008. Many reported the largest crowds they had ever seen in 2012. Something smells about the count. THE FOREIGNER receiving less votes than 2008 makes sense and would support his losing the independent vote. ROMNEY getting equal or less votes than McCAIN does not support the independent switch to his side.
They haven't been counted yet.
California has over 3 million uncounted ballots.
If you go to the CNN election results page, a wide variety of states have less than 90% of their ballots counted, including New York.
Most states don't have official certified election results until late Novemeber/early December.
This actually happened in 2008 but people didn't notice - the total votes ended up considerably higher than the total votes reported the day after the election. But with the growth in mail-in voting an even higher percentage of votes are now counted weeks after the election.
In my analysis Romney should end up with at least 62 million votes, or over 2 million more than McCain. Of course, Obama will end up with millions more votes than the 62 million he has now.
As I’ve pointed out in numerous posts and threads, there’s no mystery about this, and the day-after vote totals being millions less than the final certified vote total is routine.
What’s new this election is the proliferation of worthless articles by assorted “conservative” idiots comparing the 2012 day-after vote total with the final certified vote total from 2008, and then trying to find a cause for something that didn’t happen.
Good analysis; class warfare is a winner for Democrats, or they wouldn’t use it. Our little Republican Party just can’t figure out much of anything, it seems.
I understand why you feel that way, but polling showed only 4 percent of the public cared about Foreign Policy this time. So I can see why the Romney campaign didn’t jump on it. Turns out it was a mistake, but I can see why they made it.
PA Ping!
If you want on/off the PA Ping List, please freepmail me.
If you see posts of interest to Pennsylvanians, please ping me.
Thanks!
We know that the votes were not recorded, we do not know that they did not vote.
Voting Machines create tyrannies not Republics.
If there were a single GOPe spokesperson showing any outrage over fraudulent elections, I might be a little less cynical.
I guess some people hate Romney more than they love America. Sad.
IMHO the Ron Paul voters stayed home. Gov Palin advised Gov Romney when he won the nomination to respect the RR supporters and bring them back into the fold. During convention the GOP establishment by voice vote changed the party rules to erect more barriers for non establishment candidates. Move was aimed at the growing Ron Paul faction in the GOP. State GOP replaced RR delegates after they won some of the disricts during the primaries. The GOP do not want any RR visible and will destroy any beachhead in their party that will offend Wall Street bankers and proponents fo the Fed Reserve. Money talks BS walks.
IMHO the Ron Paul voters stayed home. Gov Palin advised Gov Romney when he won the nomination to respect the RR supporters and bring them back into the fold. During convention the GOP establishment by voice vote changed the party rules to erect more barriers for non establishment candidates. Move was aimed at the growing Ron Paul faction in the GOP. State GOP replaced RR delegates after they won some of the disricts during the primaries. The GOP do not want any RR visible and will destroy any beachhead in their party that will offend Wall Street bankers and proponents fo the Fed Reserve. Money talks BS walks.
Should read, Palin beats Romney.
What it means is that you cant win elections WITHOUT the base. I would even argue you can't win without a highly motivated base. Nominating a conservative is what motivates the base.
THE SMALL GAIN IN MODERATES DID NOT OFFSET THE LOSE OF CONSERVATIVES!
This is a lesson that the GOP-e refuses to learn.
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.