One would hope this would be the end of the endless stupid articles trying to find a cause for a non-existent decline of millions of votes from McCain to Romney, or a decline in total turnout, but I doubt it; if people want to believe something, they will believe it, even if it is obviously wrong, and people themselves have a remarkable inability to simply admit they were wrong.
I had been doing my own spreadsheet, but Wasserman is doing county-by-county updates for states that do not update their own statewide totals, which I just don't have time to do. I have checked his numbers with various State Secretary of State sites and they're valid.
California still has 1.2 million unprocessed ballots and Wasserman believes that NY and CA have 2 million unprocessed or unreported votes between them, so this total will rise, and of course 39 other states and DC do not have final vote totals yet.
An excellent question is the growth in voting age population from 2008 to 2012; the Census does not have a 2012 voting age population estimate, but it did in 2010; taking the 2008-2010 change and doubling it, the voting age population nationwide went up about 4%; Romney's current total is of course less than McCain factoring in voting age population, but the additional uncounted votes will likely put Romney's total very close to or slightly over McCain's total, even if McCain's total is adjusted.
Romney’s vote count isn’t enough of an increase to account for the growth in population.
And it certainly isn’t enough considering that instead of having an unpopular GOP president and a crashing economy, Romney was running against Obama, who jammed Obamacare down our throats and presided over a continuing, disastrous economy.
Considering that at least some of those millions fewer who voted for Obama this time must have voted for his opponent, yes, regular base turnout was lower this time around.
Let me know when he passes Obama.
Thank you for this. Time for everyone to stop piling on Romney as somehow a lousy candidate. Or blaming fraud or that stupid ORCA program.
It is simple demographics - Obama did lose at least a few million white voters. But he gained with the rising Latino and Black populations and held on to his youth and single female vote.
We had hoped the voters in this country would see what we all have been seeing. But there is just not enough of us. Too many people vote based on identity group, Federal Gov handouts, and sheer stupidity.
I don’t blame Romney he was a good candidate and would have made a good prez, far better than the dunce we are stuck with. I don’t even blame Obama he is simply what the majority of the people in this declining country now want.
Sad but true. And denying the truth serves no purpose.
You are to be commended for your diligence! In the end, I believe it will probably be that young voter that gave Obama the edge -and, of course the minority groups who exist on entitlements. You know, the ones who think that the world owes them everything and have not experienced struggling and working hard just to see the govt. take the fruits of their labors from them.
I guess that makes him The Biggest Loser.
“Mitt Was Less Horrible”.
Fills me with confidence for the future of the GOP.
I call B.S. 0bama’s totals are inflated by voter fraud, and as far as Romney’s, you can’t count discarded votes and nullified electronic voting machine votes transferred to 0bama, right?
I say Romney would have won had he picked Rubio as Veep instead of Ryan.
Let us know when Romney vote totals exceed those of Obama in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and New Hampshire.
It is a silly effort, Romney’s was a massive, incredible, humiliating loss, against Jimmy Carter’s second term.
The republicans didn’t stand a chance in 2008, but were shoo- ins for 2012.
Romney did worse than McCain/Palin.
so let’s break your argument down.
let’s see. according to your totals:
you say turnout was up. but the total vote by simple math is still down about 5,000,000 votes on obama’s side. where did those go. sorry doesn’t wash.
you are trying to imply romney was a better or as good a candidate as mccain. so given the stated/basic romney *strategy* of drawing liberal/moderate votes and discounting the missing increase in total number registered voters in the last 4 years, obama down about 5,000,000 from his original total.
so basically romney and mccain are about even, now, you say. thus, simple logic indicates, romney has lost from the mccain total what he gained from the obama. assuming some small percentage of switchers from obama to romney (since, of course, he was such a strong candidate with such a good *strategy*).
no. still don’t buy it. if your argument was supported by an additional 2% over mccains totals, i’d be more inclined to give romney credit. you’d have to break down the vote much further (again even assuming your numbers 2 weeks after the end of the campaign) to pursuade me.
no, as of right now. your numbers change nothing for me. he lost the election. in the midst of an economic depression. his strategy didn’t hold mccain voters and certainly didn’t attract reagan conservatives. his strategy was a loser. he is a loser. mccain was a weak candidate. and romney was still weaker from a conservative stand point. your data just confirms this about romney.
Big whoop. Who really gives a rat's tookus? Both MODERATES still lost to a radical, Muslim, communist!!!
I don't think that this is a statistic that either loser will be putting on their resume.
Romney is and will always be a number two.
kids, bama won because of vote siphoning, he could not win a fair election. period.