Posted on 11/07/2008 6:16:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As usual, the media has missed the huge story of this election. Their story is that Obama registered huge masses of new supporters and got them to the polls. At first, that was what I thought, but that is not the key factor. I was expecting the highest percentage turnout in 100 years amounting to 130,000,000 voters, but instead as of 5:00 PM EDT, 121,146,964 people voted for Obama or McCain. In 2004, 121,069,054 people voted for Bush or Kerry. Hence in a hotly contested election in which a fortune was spent on the race, there was no big surge in voter turnout. The population is bigger and the number of registered voters is larger than in 2004, yet just about the same number of people voted. What are we to make of this? We know that a higher than normal percentage of minorities and under 30 youths turned out pushing up the Democratic votes. We know that about 15% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for McCain-Palin (the PUMA voters). So how are we to explain the results? The conclusion is inescapable. The Republicans stayed home in droves. Obama did not win the election, the Republicans gave it to him by not getting out and voting.
For those of you who have been following my previous articles, you know I was predicting a McCain-Palin landslide in the electoral votes based on the P.U.M.A. Factor. Since these disgruntled Hillary supporters would normally vote Democrat, that should have been enough to tip the balance in the key states. I even allowed for a huge turnout because of Obama's vaunted ACORN express in my calculations so as not to underestimate the number of PUMA voters required. I have been doing this for 45 years and have never been wrong before. It goes without saying that when the results were widely different from what I predicted, I wanted to know how I could be so wrong. At first I thought it was because the PUMA voters did not turn out and vote for McCain-Palin but they clearly did. Then I thought that it was because Obama got millions of new voters to the polls and simply swamped the PUMA factor.
It was only when the turnout figures became available that I had to discard that theory. If the usual number of people voted yet more Democrats than normal turned out and there a sizable number of PUMA voters voting Republican, how could McCain-Palin have lost? When the results were staring me in the face, I was totally shocked. The smaller turnout meant that even fewer PUMA voters were required in the key states than I had calculated so McCain-Palin should have done even better than I predicted. Naturally my predictions were based on a normal Republican turnout. Who would have ever thought that the Republicans would fail to turn out in this election? While I am still busy trying to wipe the egg of my face, I am also extremely curious as to why so many Republicans stayed home. I imagine that I am not alone in wondering that at this point.
Did all the publicity about a Obama landslide and polls showing that Obama had it made in the shade cause the Republicans to stay home? Were too many Republicans so unhappy with President Bush that they felt that there was no point in voting? Were the Republicans that unhappy with McCain and Palin as the candidates? Were too many Republicans affected by white guilt about slavery and figured electing Obama would prove that America is not a racist country anymore? Yet the tracking polls only showed a 6% defection to Obama from Republicans. Mark Bureau has suggested that it was because McCain voted for the bailout bill which is an excellent point. Whatever their reason was, it does not change the results.
I will add two more possible reasons for the low Republican turnout. It has been speculated that it was the Romney supporters who stayed home. The other reason being floated is that too many Republicans bought into the media portraying Sarah Palin as a total twit. I have more than one personal friend that falls into that category. Obviously, my reputation for knowing what I am talking about is a bit tarnished at this point. A lot of people have written to say that they cannot imagine why anyone would listen to what I have to say. My answer is that I am not always wrong and I am not wrong about why Obama won. I offer in my defense: Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting. In case you do not wish to follow the link, here is the relevant part:
"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980."
The Pubs need to groom an unknown American Idol too, a conservative elvis to pop on the scene and whip up a mezmerizing fanatic frenzy of silvertongued bumperstickerisms in order to win in 2012
that seems to be the trend
Having read about the it before ‘snopes’ even existed, and also knowing snopes’ pathetic failure rate. I’ve got some Uncyclopedia entries here... they must be fact!
We differ on approach, but the un communists need a star.
Here in Orange in 2004 Bush received 79,089 votes and Kerry received 63,394.
This year Obama received 68,160 votes and McCain received 66,512.
I have heard from some individuals that they did not vote for either Presidential candidate.
I have always said this to my conservative friends who are so uninspired by McCain that they want to stay home.
Elections are often not about choosing the perfect candidate but PREVENTING A GREATER EVIL FROM TAKING OVER.
McCain might only meet 60 to 70% of your criteria in terms of policy but what is worse ? getting 70% or getting virtually none ?
And that is the problem. Now that close to 10 million conservatives have virtually handed the presidency over to Obama, what are they going to get long after Obama is gone ?
For one, they’re going to be getting judges, justices and Supreme Court justices who are going to legislate from the bench and torment us for over 30 years long after Obama is gone. That’s what you get for staying home because McCain does not meet your criteria.
You’re going to be getting things like — Legalization of infanticide ( remember, Obama voted AGAINST even protecting babies born alive ), Judges who will overturn legislation to defend marriage, stronger unions that will cause more businesses to move overseas, a weaker military, more socialism, more government programs that will outlive even Obama himself.
THAT is what you get. I hope you’re happy with what you did not do.
Lol! I hear ya!
Same with Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton...
You have no idea what elections are for. I suggest getting a lesson in civics.
Elections are there for voters to vote for a candidate that most closely matches the ideals, policies, and values of that voter. End of story.
And if you don’t do this, your vote is wasted - as you will have voted for a candidate that *DOESN’T* represent you.
Elections are there for voters to vote for a candidate that most closely matches the ideals, policies, and values of that voter. End of story.
And if you don’t do this, your vote is wasted - as you will have voted for a candidate that *DOESN’T* represent you.
Well said!!
So what you're saying is that instead of bending over and grabbing your ankles you should bend over and grab your knees. Sorry that's just not my style.
McCain did not lose because of McCain, he lost because of the pure childishness of those Republicans that could not look beyond their own stupid predigests and realize Obama will ruin America. That is pure ignorance.
McCain lost because of McCain.
For you whiners who keep trying to blame people who stayed home:
You are still thinking of them as Republicans. Perhaps THEY don’t think of themselves as Republicans anymore for the reason that the GOP doesn’t represent them anymore.
So quit blaming people for not voting for candidates of a party that they don’t support anymore.
I voted for McCain, but I feel like I need a bath all of a sudden.
Don't be too sure.
The Rats are already working on structural changes that will guarantee they are never defeated again. These include crushing talk radio and maybe regulating the internet.
In addition, they are working to eliminate the 401K, thus erasing the "investor class" as Investor's Business Daily calls those of us who own stock through retirement plans and who, therefore, don't identify with the "class struggle" between corporations and workers.
That, combined with a frontal assault on small business, closing many down, will result in a clear wedge between workers and business with little gray area.
The assets of the 401Ks, combined with the equities of the financial institutions they took over with the $800B bailout, is equivalent to them nationalizing the businesses of this country.
The Obama "tax cuts" will take even more Americans off the tax rolls. That, along with extending the franchise to illegals, felons and other non tax payers will result in perhaps 48% of voters owing no income tax. And, of those who do pay taxes, many will be government workers who see their self-interest as having a bigger government.
The goal and the result will be to make as many of us identify with the proletariat as possible, creating more and more dependence on Rats for our existence.
This doesn't even consider the rule changes and laws they will pass to make it difficult to run conservatives and to institutionalize ACORN-like tactics.
We must strike swiftly to save our voices and our freedom. There are no guarantees that BO or the Rats will screw up on their own. They have been living for this moment, dreaming, scheming and plotting their whole lives.
Absolutely! Open primaries need to be eliminated...NH raised McCain's candidacy from the dead...thanks, 'Free State'. (Vermont pulls this stunt, as well...they cross over and select the worst possible Republican candidate in the primaries to give the Democrat the best chance of winning. That is why we are stuck with Leahy, for example. Democrats voting in the Republican primary nominated a semi-literate dairy farmer back in the late 90's, and Leahy beat him like a drum.)
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.