REPUBLICANS STAY HOME SO OBAMA WINS

The Marston Chronicles ^ | Nov 7, 2008 | Paul N. Marston

[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."

[Boiling point]

What are going to be the hotly contested seats in the house in 2010 and I wonder what the min/max we stand to take is.

[freedom_forge]

Absolutely! Open primaries need to be eliminated

This is a first and mandatory step. Next, raise money. We will never come to the level of Soros but we may be able to spend more wisely.

[gogogodzilla]

The constitution details how and when to hold elections, it does not say why one must vote for one candidate or the other.

However, if you believe that voting is a matter of selecting a candidate that represents only a select few of your beliefs... when other candidates represent your views more closely.

Then you really should learn more about our form of government and what our founding fathers stood for.

---

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." — John Quincy Adams

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

(You would have us moderate our principals for the sake of a Republican victory?)

[ellery]

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.

Well, even if your interpretation is true, the GOP is going to have to field candidates who satisfy the requirements of those "childish" Republicans...correct?

[infowarrior]

McCain's loss was of his own doings.

Only partly so. He had "help" on that score, courtesy of Benjamin Bernanke and that cabal of "useless eaters" called the Federal Reserve, who just *had* to have their 700 billion dollar bailout 6 weeks before a Presidential election. Why didn't they make their demand in the spring, when anyone who was keeping an eye on the subprime mortgage mess knew that such an action would be necessary, or failing that, at least have to common courtesy to wait until *after* the election to demand it?

The answer is simple. Up until that point McCain, for all that I never liked him, was running a competitive race, and could conceivably have pulled off an upset win. This did not sit well the the bankers of the fed, so they made their move, ensuring McCain's defeat. And just like the last time the fed moved to alter the course of events in this country to enact their own agenda of one-world-government, it will be 80 years before we get the truth out them, if we ever do.

Was McCain a less than perfect candidate for us? Yes, you bet. Was he often his own worst enemy, as far as we were concerned? Again, you better believe it! But, *was* there another force at work here, in this strangest of election cycles this country has ever seen? There certainly was, and that force was the fed, who were playing politics, banana-republic style, quite brazenly, and for their own ends.

Why the push? In retrospect it becomes clear. Given the choice of an inexperienced, not too bright neophyte, who copuld easily be manipulated, and a savvy politico with the reputation of being a maverick, who would you want to deal with to establish your ultimate goal? I should think the answer would be quite obvious to anyone of even close to normal intelligence. They acted openly, I believe, because *if* they are successful, then this will be the *last* US Presidential election to be held...

the infowarrior

[MetsJetsandNets]

Longtime Freeper MississippiMasterpiece was banned for posting the following prediction in a couple of threads back in August prior to the election. Every state he said would go for Obama went that way.

The Democrats will carry (moving roughly from west to east) Hawaii, California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, Virginia, the District of Columbia and Florida. It’s also possible North Carolina and Louisiana will go to the democrats.

[muawiyah]

You don't really believe that stuff about a "tax cut" do you? It was nonsense when he first said it and it continues to be nonsense. Obama and his running dog lackeys have no intention of giving anyone a tax cut.

So don't plan on it one way or the other.

As far as stealing our retirement funds, of course they're going to try to do that. Nothing like pi$$ing off 50 million people to find out there are assassins lurking everywhere.

The Democrats know that, and this country isn't like Latin America. The government doesn't have all the guns.

[SeekAndFind]

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." — John Quincy Adams

With all due respect Mr. President, my first principle is to vote for the most conservative constitutionalist available. My second principle is given that there is less than ideal candidate, I would vote AGAINST the person who would lead us further AWAY from the constitution faster than the one who could at least act as the slower deterent.

Life does not always give us ideal choices.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

But which is worse Mr. Paine ? a President who has voted for and promises to give us more of constitutionalists like Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, or a president who has voted AGAINST these constitutionalists and promises to give us more of people like Ruth Ginsburg on the bench ?

[Grunthor]

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 ?

---

So what you are saying is....you “settled” and still lost?

[freedom_forge]

You don't really believe that stuff about a "tax cut" do you? It was nonsense when he first said it and it continues to be nonsense. Obama and his running dog lackeys have no intention of giving anyone a tax cut.

You misunderstand me or I misspoke. They intend to "cut" taxes for some, maybe even giving them a welfare check because they don't pay taxes. At the same time they will raise taxes for those in the upper brackets. It would be more of a tax shift than a tax cut. The goal is not to really cut taxes in total, but to increase the ratio of parasites to producers and buy the votes of those who got the "cut."

[muawiyah]

Here's an argument you sometimes see from Democrats ~ to wit: Everybody pays taxes.

Turns out it's pretty much true. Even a welfare kid with a buck in his hand from his mother to go to the 7/11 to buy bubblegum is going to pay a salestax.

I watched entirely too many Republican speakers this last campaign try to shift the argument away from "taxes" to "income taxes". As soon as you do that you LOSE the attention of even the welfare mothers ~ they know very well their kids will pay a tax at the 7/11, and they are not particularly interested about the guys at the top of the salary scale.

BTW, they know that in states with no income tax but with a sales tax, even the guys at the top of the salary scale get a federal income tax deduction for the sales taxes they pay, but they don't.

It is counter productive for Republicans to pretend they don't know anything about taxes in this country. You can't just focus on the federal income tax.

I am sure we can come up with a comprehensive program of "tax equity" that can be a winner. Our present incoherent position looks inequitable to most of the voters.

[muawiyah]

There "can be only one" Ruthie Ginsburg.

Ol'Ruthy never met a baby she could like nor a mass murderer she could send on a one way trip on a gurney.

[SeekAndFind]

So what you are saying is....you “settled” and still lost?

YES. And more importantly, had enough Republicans voted like me (in your words, "settled"), WE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED the most liberal senator who WILL DEFINITELY fill the courts with bench legislators from taking over.

[gogogodzilla]

And on the flip-side... had every Republican voted for a real conservative in the primary’s, instead of settling for the ‘electable’ candidate - we wouldn’t have even *HAD* this problem.

Which just proves Thomas Paine correct.

[walsh]

Here! Here! You speak the truth!!!

[SeekAndFind]

And on the flip-side... had every Republican voted for a real conservative in the primary’s, instead of settling for the ‘electable’ candidate - we wouldn’t have even *HAD* this problem

Which just proves Thomas Paine correct.

That is a counter-factual that needs to be proven this century. It could be that America has changed after one generation has passed and like Tocqueville warned, might already have discovered that they can "Vote themselves largesse from the public treasury".

We will not know if Paine has been proven correct this century until we get another candidate like Reagan (if we do ).