Posted on 11/12/2012 8:26:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Edited on 11/12/2012 9:30:57 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A score of people this past week have asked me about the three million Republicans allegedly "missing" at the polls this year. For starters, if the Washington Post is to be believed, Mitt Romney received 1.3 million fewer votes than John McCain did in 2008, not 3 million. For the record, Obama received 7.5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.Excerpt, read the rest at American ThinkerMore than 1.1 million of the Republican votes were "lost" in California. It is not that California Republicans turned against Romney. His percentage of the vote was higher than McCain's in 2008.
I’ve seen a couple of comments about this but do you have any links? Several people would be very interested.
Hm, do you have some examples?
Except making the legitimate vote reflect the artificial one.
That is the problem with this lawless federation. if you don’t vote and somehow insure that vote is illegitimate they are going to rob you blind.
It is probably outside of our capability to make-sure any vote is legitimate, sinse the ones in power are placed there by the same illegitimate vote. Once you lose control of the flow you can’t regain it, for lack of the same control which you lost.
The only real hope aside from a compete restart(revolution) is that Courts will somehow discover the fraud and reverse it. That i think is extremely unlikely given the nature of the fraud and the courts.
#2...Yes #s go up & down @ elections...Still, what I've heard is that the Voting Age population has gone UP by 21 million since 2004...If you & I were talking about stable pop #s of the voting-age populace, that'd be ONE thing; but when you don't have at least SOME kind of voting increase to trail the increase in eligible voters, then that usually spells a problem for democracy.
I know some don't lament these "left-out" voters -- because they oft' come across as either shepherdless (no clue WHO to vote for), or they are shepherded by the wrong leaders (like black churches who bus their members to vote for Obama 100%-0).
As for having good reasons NOT to vote for either Romney or Obama, hey, I identify with that...voted for Virgil Goode.
As for having good reasons NOT to vote at all...well, every election is more than just about the POTUS race...lots of regional & local races & issues. So far as conservatives go, I don't look favorably of those voters who simply skimped key elections.
Since we're a govt ruled by the people (well, in THEORY we are), people need to steward that in some way...
They could then be manipulated into supporting whatever argument they wanted by hitting their emotional triggers.
Hm, do you have some examples?
—My favorite example was one of my workers. Total misanthrope animal rights person, covered in tats and piercings, never bathed etc etc. and openly hated black people (I had to threaten to fire her for making racist remarks).
Through data mining they could identify the animal rights groups she belonged to, who her friends were, what ads/sites she clicked etc etc. One of her friends was recruited to constantly work on her to vote for Obama but finally what did it was they bombarded her email with footage of people in Alaska shooting wolves from airplanes and blamed Sarah Palin of course.
She registered to vote and actually took the day off to drive back to her home state to vote for Obama. All because she felt she was getting back at Sarah Palin. She couldn’t have told you about one issue in the election and whether Obama won or not would change nothing for the wolves in Alaska, but they hit that emotional trigger and it turned literally one of the laziest most unmotivated people I’ve ever met in my life into someone that would have walked through fire to vote against Sarah Palin and threw a party to celebrate it to boot.
I see this stuff all time from my friends though. I try to make a case about how raising taxes will actually hurt the poor the most and the response is blabber about how I haven’t seen how poor people really are in such and such a neighborhood and I don’t care about the poor. They just skip past the logical argument and go back to emotional ones.
The other classic example is getting kids on the side of global warming by showing a mother polar bear separated from her cub by the melting ice. Once they see that you can try to explain that even polar bear cubs can swim for miles so this never happens but you will never overcome that initial response.
>> Until we know the data we certainly cannot decide, for example, whether to move right or left or whether to emphasize women’s or Hispanics or whether to concentrate exclusively on economic issues.
Move left, pander???
The GOP needs singing lessons, and better microphone. It doesn’t need to “move left” at all.
So strange, people are going to analyze data from a fraud ridden election. Garbage in, garbage out.
The left got its panties all in a wad about it. Conservatives cheered, without realizing who was running the equipment.
Remember Soros' effort to elect socialist secretaries of state in battleground states? I'd sure like to see a correlation between those results and this election.
With the lines people witnessed, something really stinks.
BTTT!
One of the most glaring omissions from Mitt Romney’s campaign was the use of coalitions. Whereas the Obama campaign created all kinds of sub-groups (“African-Americans for Obama,” “Latinos for Obama,” etc.), and promoted them aggressively, the Romney campaign’s coalition effort was woefully weak at best and virtually non-existent in key swing states such as Ohio.
And:
We did this in South Africa by pointing out the failure of the ruling party’s affirmative action policies. Though ostensibly intended to help blacks, in effect the policy allowed the ruling party to help itself and its cronies. Most black people were excluded from the benefits, while a few billionaires were re-“empowered” over and over. Putting merit first was an attractive policy alternative for at least some black voters and communities.
As Obama sets up "Latinos for Obama" what he is really doing is opening franchises for entrepreneurs who want to go into the business of delivering votes for the Democrat party in return for crony favors. This is what the author is referring to in the second paragraph quoted above and it is a similar play out of what Obama has done with his fatcat donors in green energy etc.
My point is that if one looks at the Democrat party as a coalition of black ministers who get walking around money, ethnic politicians of various colors who get sinecures, community organizers who operate as extortionists, one can begin to understand how the Democrat party extends its tentacles while the very process is being financed by its victims. The best metaphor I can think of is a parasite which ultimately consumes its host.
When white bread Republicans attempt to compete against this model with boosterism and models of community service like so many Rotary clubs, they get rolled over. Our model is minor-league and cannot win under the circumstances.
Actually, the MSM Libmedia cheerleading squad needs to be the first to go. Not sure there is a scandal big enough to get them eating their own, though.
Gresham’s Law applies here. Capitalism just sees green. That the money came from the legal force of government doesn’t matter. It’s a trap, but a sweet one. The conservative approach is minor-league in that it only focuses on the economic. Romney was wrong to leave social conservatism out of it.
For the average person, finacial success is strongly tied to social success. Social success is a function of conservative principles of marriage, family and faith. Arguing that the two go together is a winning strategy and easily demonstrable. Romney was the wrong candidate with the wrong message.
Exit polls show that voters feared a strong manager that would fire them. They needed the trust found in conservatisms core principles - you’re part of the family, a child of God, and I’ll protect you because I live and believe these values. When did Romney ever successfully project that message.
Independents as a class vote their emotions. Romney appealed to the intellect and he was right, yet he lost. The GOP can win, but only when it embraces its principles.
The lesson of the election is that given the uncertainty about Romney’s message the voters chose status quo.
bump... same old same old story
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.