Posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:17 PM PST by Iam1ru1-2
As the smoke clears from the wreckage of the Romney defeat on Tuesday, some intriguing yet disturbing facts are coming to light.
* Fewer people overall voted in 2012 (about 117 million) compared to 2008 (about 125 million).
* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).
* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win — clearly it did not.
* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)
Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:
The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a “Massachusetts moderate.” The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romney’s 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romney’s 31%).
That said, what I’m looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble:
42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008. 57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008. When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012.
You’d think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didn’t. 78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasn’t nearly enough.
To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldn’t win.
Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008. 48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasn’t enough.
Now consider this additional data:
In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, –no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this.
Of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, therefore, about 30 million (26%) were evangelicals. Of this, 21% — or about 6.4 million evangelicals — voted for Obama.
By comparison, of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, 32.5 million (26%) were evangelicals. At the time, Obama won 24% of evangelicals, or about 7.8 million people.
What’s more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls. In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic.
Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.
What does all this mean? A few observations:
During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters — they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)
There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romney’s Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout.
The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls — but it did not work.
Despite Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record — a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics — Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obama’s evangelical and Catholic vote.
If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – he would have won the election handily.
It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?
Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.
This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action. Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.
What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them?
This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.
That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.
We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.
None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being “salt” and “light” to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isn’t a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals — a Third Great Awakening. As men and women’s hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we don’t see a Third Great Awakening soon, I’m not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.
The fically convervative but social liberal types have been in denial for decades that the social conservative's warnings have been right all along (all the while being smeared and demonized for telling the truth).
Now that the social liberal utopia is upon us, the same liberals(RINOS and many libertarians) that were wrong before are now suggesting that conservatives turn their backs on four hundered years of American civilization and concede to becoming a European cesspool clone.
Pro-abortion? Of course not. But realistically, arguing that abortion should be categorically banned under any circumstances isn’t going to win them elections.
Gay marriage? No, they don’t need to favor it—certainly not at a Federal level. If people wanted to be more clever in arguments against gay marriage, they could take the stance that gay marriage is discriminatory against unmarried people, etc.
Overall, you may not like it, but I think the GOP is in a better position to let these things go and assert them as states’ rights issues. The culture war isn’t ‘winnable’ on a national scale, it’s something better engaged on local levels.
Support for Israel under pretext of mutual national security interests would be palatable. Supporting Israel under pretext of Christian-Jewish friendship or something of this nature, wouldn’t be.
What does “fervently pro-life” imply?
Look at post 127, the GOP doesn’t do much in the way of trying to appeal to full conservatives, they give a little lip service, do some gun stuff, wave the flag a little, but then they do like post 127.
There is no pool of voters out there in the democrat party that are eager to become republicans for conservative economic theory and Ayn Rand, but they can be appealed to on the eternal issues of family friendly, culture friendly, society friendly, social issues.
Bull shite.
The fraud was a liberal Republican
What a flapping moron.
There has never been an anti-mormon post on FR, there have been many anti-mormonISM threads in the religion forum.
But I really do not expect people who are Romney lap dogs to understand the difference.
Are you God?
You have been using the word ‘fervently’ over and over on this thread so I can only assume you have no idea what ‘pro-life’ means. Pro-life means anti-abortion for starters.
Good lord that is a stupid comment
Correct, I tend to vote Republican, albeit not enthusiastically. I certainly won’t vote Democrat.
My political outlooks largely revolve around wanting to see statism defeated and rolled back in all its forms—fiscally and socially. I’m not particularly convinced that it’s possible to legislate people into being moral.
Democrat voters in the main aren’t going to switch away, because many are convinced that liberty comes through government instead of through themselves.
But there’s plenty of largely unaffiliated folks and true independents who don’t believe that, yet also don’t like the perceived moralistic bent of the GOP.
Nice back peddle...
IOWs they want the right to kill babies. Don't worry I don't expect an honest or direct answer from you. In my 12+ years here I have never seen more trollish posting than what you're doing here.
If you're going to compare one group to another and lay judgments on them, which is what you've been doing, then percentages are the only thing that matters. You are amazingly bigoted.
Not trolling. Like I said, I’ve been here too long for that. I’m only sharing an opinion, comprising what I’ve observed from spending time among many different political circles out of curiosity to see how they think and why. And from what I can tell, the Republican Party loses heaps of potential voters due to categorical stances on certain social issues.
Very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
Boy, you are trying hard to get some attention aren’t you?
Posters who bait a thread with accusations and unsupported statements and then refuse to answer direct questions are trolls. That is the definition of trolling. Anyone who has been here since ‘02 and claims they don’t know what the pro-life platform of the Republican Party is is lying and a troll.
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.