Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Waryone
How about in numbers of evangelical voters compared to George Bush in 2000 and 2004?

All states have certified vote totals except for New York and Hawaii (astoundingly, New York may not be done for weeks more.)

Accounting for population growth, Romney got 96.8% of the votes that Bush did in 2004 in the Bible Belt states other than Texas (for obvious reasons Texas skews the results); these include Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

In all the states OUTSIDE the Bible Belt, Romney only got 88.4% compared to Bush.

It's pretty clear that Romney got MORE support from evangelicals and the "base" than he did from moderates and independents, and the cause for the loss was not getting enough moderate and independent votes.

55 posted on 12/27/2012 5:03:39 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: Strategerist
the cause for the loss was not getting enough moderate and independent votes.

Two differing strategic responses present themselves:

1) Move the GOP further to the Left. Become even more like the Democrats. Maybe we can suck up additional moderate and independent voters!
or
2) Find a candidate who actually believes in Conservative valuies and actually wants to make the case for Conservatism. Sell our ideas to the moderates. Convince them that the Left is wrong. Take a principled stand and educate the voters.

57 posted on 12/27/2012 5:10:11 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Republicans have made themselves useless, toothless, and clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: Strategerist

Now wait a second Romney won Independents in Ohio by double digits.

Something Bush never did.

Clearly he maxed out on I’s he needed the stay at home conservatives that just like you said were 3.2% int the Bible Belt and 11.6% outside.


60 posted on 12/27/2012 5:20:09 AM PST by NeoCaveman (SMOD 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: Strategerist

That’s very interesting considering the fact that he was hyped as being the candidate who would be able to attract the moderates and independents. Perhaps the RINOs don’t know the moderates and independents as well as they think?

Few were excited about voting for Romney, people stayed home. I guess what Rush Limbaugh said the democrats discovered was true. You have to excite your base to win elections. An excited base draws the stragglers and fence sitters, getting even the non-voters excited enough to come out to vote.

The old saying that voting against something isn’t any where near as powerful as voting for something holds true again. It seems the “Stupid Party” will never learn.


73 posted on 12/27/2012 9:58:50 AM PST by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson