Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

American Thinker ^ | 08/09/2014 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics -- was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is! Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.

But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.

Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.

[Ray76]

Romney lost because Democrat turnout was greater than expected?

Romney lost because he is a wuss RINO.

[SeekAndFind]

IOW, Romney lost because Republican turnout was LOWER than expected.

[Travis McGee]

[Gen.Blather]

“Romney lost because he is a wuss RINO.”

If I recall, something on the order of 1.6 million fewer Republican votes were cast for Romney than were cast for McCain. That means he was such a poor candidate that a significant number of formerly Republican voters could not hold their nose long enough to pull the lever for him. The only reason I voted was to try to get someone in office who was at least American. (Pretty low standard, I know.)

[jjotto]

2012 Romney 61 million votes

2008 McCain 60 million votes

2004 Bush 62 million votes - re-election

2000 Bush 50.5 million votes

[gasport]

.

[chatham]

Alexander Fraser Tytler > Quotes > Quotable Quote Alexander Fraser Tytler “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler circa late 1700 No more needs be said.

[Jim from C-Town]

2008
Nominee
Barack Obama John McCain

Party
Democratic Republican

Home state
Illinois Arizona

Running mate
Joe Biden Sarah Palin

Electoral vote
365 173

States carried
28 + DC + NE-02 22

Popular vote
69,498,516 59,948,323

Percentage
52.9% 45.7%

2012
Nominee
Barack Obama Mitt Romney

Party
Democratic Republican

Home state
Illinois Massachusetts

Running mate
Joe Biden Paul Ryan

Electoral vote
332 206

States carried
26 + DC 24

Popular vote
65,915,796 60,933,500

Percentage
51.1% 47.2%

Romney had close to a million MORE votes than McCain and Obama had almost four million FEWER votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. I am pretty certain that a Non-Black would have lost to Romney as Blacks where heavily over sampled, IE: voted, than at any other time in history. Add in the margin of fraud and Romney didn’t have a chance.

[DJ MacWoW]

Did You Know?

The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?

Now That You Do, Donate And Keep FR Running

[Georgia Girl 2]

Romney lost because 3 million republicans sat home. He just could not connect properly with the average person.

Now Mitt is likely to run again in 2016. 6 million will sit home.

[SoConPubbie]

IOW, Romney lost because Republican turnout was LOWER than expected.

Romney lost because he wasn't a conservative at all.

He supported Abortion and the Gay Agenda and wouldn't know what the correct purpose of Government (very limited) if the definition hit him in the face.