Actually the opposite occurred. There was a significant spit-at-home vote due to Rmoney throwing Conservatism and Tea Partiers under the bus.
And, Tokyo Rove supported him. Q. E. D.
That should have been “sit-at-home.”
Damn hand splint.
And, Tokyo Rove supported him. Q. E. D.
Agree with you on fact that there were some "spit-at-home" conservatives, as you described them.
But any honest "spit-at-home" person who responded to a pollster would tell him that he (she) wasn't likely to vote. The pollster, who was dealing only with likely voters, would not have included that response as a Romney vote in computing his bottom line data. Yet although these voters were excluded from the pollster's results, Romney still held the small polling leads I mentioned in just about all the swing states, which somehow "disappeared" when the purported results were announced. This was unlike any other recent presidential election.
The most likely and logical single explanation for that discrepancy in Obama's favor between the purported election results and the late pre-election polls would be fraud and cheating on the part of the 'rats. "Spit-at-home" voters would not count in either the purported post-election results or the pre-election polling, so they can't be an explanation for the discrepancies to which I'm referring.
What are the demographics of the sit-at-home [non]vote because Romney is a liberal? How many were there? What states do the live in?