Posted on 04/29/2013 10:21:08 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would have won the presidency if the white and black turnout rates had stayed at their 2004 levels, according to a new analysis of 2012 election.
“The battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same,” according to The Associated Press’s summary of research by William Frey, an expert at the Brookings Institution.
Overall turnout declined from 62 percent in 2008 to 58 percent in 2012, Frey reported.
The drop-off reduced the overall turnout by up to 5 million votes, despite a slight increase in the number of eligible white voters, said the AP report....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Your reference to a post made by Lake a few days after the election is not a fair judge of his sentiments. Of course, right after an election (Nov 10) loss like Romney had, there will be bitter feelings.
I was just reading a Rush interview and he repeated the conventional wisdom that Romney didn’t lose because he got only 26% of the 7% Hispanic vote. He lost because he got only 80% of the 28% Evangelical vote.
Lake thinks Evangelicals shot themselves in the foot. That’s not an irrational position.
I think Romney pushed them away intentionally with his support of everything gay and his being pro-life-lite.
Who’s right? (I am, of course :>)
However, Lake has never been anything but friendily sarcastic. He has never been rudely sarcastic with me.
I can’t fault a guy for standing up for what he believes is a correct assessment.
Oh oh.. You earned the scorn now Johnny. Pretty soon you won’t just dumb and stupid...nooooo.. You will be all sorts of things. And you know how I know that? It’s because a real American conservative will say so. ...
Right after he makes excuses for helping the gonsels of the world by CAMPAIGNING for people like Romney and trashing any who think that is a bad idea.
Cuz he’s smart and we are just doo doo heads!!!
Might wanna read that post history.
Of course, now that Cruz is kicking ass and taking names by standing on principle, as he was elected to do, some are whining, and some are lifting their fingers and trying to tack their sails that way.
I don't remember a freshman senator ever getting this much national press for being a stone cold SOB about standing on principles and being vocal about it.
/johnny
I've been here for a lot of election cycles where I said I wouldn't vote for the GOP liberal. I'm still here. I get yelled at every single time by the squishes.
/johnny
I guess I should let this guy have at it since there is another Ryan thread with people promoting his new love of gay adoption. And calling it good.
Well, he got what he wanted so I guess he can be happy now. A fully liberal GOP.
And of course Romney was not anything near Reagan.
The point is this Sir Random: I never supported Romney as he ran for the nomination. It took me a few weeks of wanting to hide when it was clear he was going to win. He was never my first, second or even third choice, but he won the nomination. Plus no one appointed him, he won. He wasn't forced on you as you claim, he won. He won because there was no conservative candidate who stepped up, he won because all the other candidates who ran had worse problems than he did. Sorry to pop your pickle, he won because you and I did not convince the GOP electorate that there was a better alternative.
Okay, once he won, what are we to do?
Let me see, there are now two candidates who can win.......we have on the one hand, a clearly destructive, clearly divisive, clearly America hating, clearly Marxist loving, clearly muzzie loving, clearly abortion loving, clearly gun control loving, clearly intent on ruining everything we love and stand for. It was what he had done already that proved what I just said, it wasn't even a suspicion, it was a fact.
And on the other hand we had a RINO squish, who none of us wanted, who none of us trusted.
Now, say all you want, but Romney ran on being pro-life, said he had changed in 2006 (yeah I know, a bit untrustworthy), but he never waivered on that change, hasn't come out (like Laura Bush) and said he was only fooling us, and continues to hold that stance.
He was clearly pro-capitalist, and like it or not he was the only truly anti-illigal immigration anti-amnesty canidate we had.
There are other things to say, but the point once again is we could have turned out to get rid of the destructive Marxist stain, to replace him with an untrustworthy squish. Squish or American destroyer, gosh what should a patriotic American do?
Okay, here it is, I know you sat home or didn't vote for Romney. I find that totally insane. You say you're a purist, but the latest Bambi gambit to put out the abortion pill for all to get near the candy is incomprehensible. Good God man, do you not understand how different that is than a squish?
Okay, I don't care to explain this to you any more, if you don't understand that not showing up to get rid of the destructive stain was a good principle to follow, and what every purist should have done, there is no help for your self righteous complaining about what Bambi is doing.
When I say Bambi won because of the "purists", it's true, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for not showing up in droves to ged rid of the stain. You didn't because you couldn't get up the outrage to get rid of this horrid administion? Tha alone should have been enough, and that's what I mean when it was the "purists" fault, because it was, they (you and Norm and Ansel) didn't show up to do what should have been done.
I consider myself to be as conservative as you. Fully pro-life, pro-free enterprised, pro-border security, pro-Cruz, pro-Palin, and unlike Norm and Ansel (not sure about you, so far so good) don't like to come on here and lie to get my point across.
You may not agree, frankly I don't care, I don't really care to engage you anymore, but now I hope you know what I mean (and yes, I'm a Cruz loving conservative purist)what I did (and do) when I admonish the "purists". they should have risen up en masse to get rid of the stain, but they didn't.
Shame on all of them.
Romney won the nomination because of cheating by the GOP. Rules changes in the middle, Florida's delegates counting even though they were early.... there's a list.
The GOP pushed their liberal. He lost.
At this point, unless someone is like Cruz, I'll be voting anti-GOP all the way.
Your liberal squish lost. Bottom line.
/johnny
Oh for crying out loud...stop crying in your drink already! This isn’t about the voter turning out or not! Stop blaming the voters!
This fiasco rest squarely on the shoulders of the candidates the GOP provides. Put up a lousy candidate, expect to lose. How many times and how far down do we need to fall before the GOP finally learns how to pick a winning candidate that can ‘turn out the vote.’
Who wouldn’t vote for Reagan, a great pro-life presidential candidate in 1980, a life-long pro-lifer, just as Romney is a life-long pro-abortion guy.
Romney spent at least 5 years trying to create a myth that Reagan, who Romney despised and didn’t vote for, was “adamantly pro-choice”, Romney even left the GOP in 1979, and eventually became a democrat supporter and fund raiser.
Purists voted for lifelong pro-lifer Reagan, Romney ran against the republican party’s pro-life party platform as it’s 2012 presidential nominee, after being arguably the GOP’s most passionate, and sincere, and emotionally persuasive abortion promoter for many years.
There is no benefit in trying to make Romney not be what he was or in making Reagan out to be what he wasn’t.
That has nothing to do, however, with the logic of ABO’s versus non-ABO’s.
The first said that “ANYTHING” was better than Obama.
The second said that STANDING FOR PRINCIPLE was most important of all.
I stand with the second group, but there is no way I can “prove” my position or “disprove” the ABO’s, since both positions are opinion based.
Lakeshark is not being anything but honest about what he believes is/was the right answer. I do not see that as sinful or anti-conservative.
xzin, I have never done that, nor did I do it in that post, so drop that nonsense. Post 170 was completely accurate.
As far as lakeshark, his/her first post on this thread was post 87, I don't know why you defend that post, nor the following ones he posted at me.
read your second paragraph and re-read what I wrote. You’ll see they say the same thing.
No I don’t see it at all.
I also want to know what you think is inaccurate in post 170.
I think there is NOTHING inaccurate in post 170.
That is why I’m puzzled that you don’t see that my post agrees with you. It’s probably just poorly written.
That aside, my point is simply that we can’t hold ABO’s like Lake accountable for what they believed about that election. Their belief was not irrational. Their belief that Romney was better than Obama, while still believing that Romney was really bad, is not treacherous or deceitful. In fact, they were very above board about it.
Even Jim Robinson finally settled on that position, and I don’t think any of us would question his credibility.
You are RIGHT that we should try to make Romney something that he never was (pro-life, pro-natural sexual relationships, etc.). You are right that they tried to make Reagan something that he wasn’t (pro-choice).
That is what you were saying, isn’t it?
CORRECTION: SEE LAST PARAGRAPH. Left out a NOT.
I think there is NOTHING inaccurate in post 170.
That is why I’m puzzled that you don’t see that my post agrees with you. It’s probably just poorly written.
That aside, my point is simply that we can’t hold ABO’s like Lake accountable for what they believed about that election. Their belief was not irrational. Their belief that Romney was better than Obama, while still believing that Romney was really bad, is not treacherous or deceitful. In fact, they were very above board about it.
Even Jim Robinson finally settled on that position, and I don’t think any of us would question his credibility.
You are RIGHT that we should NOT try to make Romney something that he never was (pro-life, pro-natural sexual relationships, etc.). You are right that they tried to make Reagan something that he wasn’t (pro-choice).
That is what you were saying, isn’t it?
I don't know why you are posting that to me, or who "we" is supposed to be, which of my posts show any interest in that topic? Read my posts to that poster.
Although I will point out to someone defending the nastiest, most personal, troll like posting on FR anytime someone criticizes Romney because it is valid to do so under the guise that the ABO argument is still appropriate today and forever when talking about Romney and his disaster of 2012, that the defense is ridiculous, and it sure doesn't cover what are purely personal attacks with no real political discussion involved.
If someone criticizes Romney's politics and agenda, then the issues need to be responded to, resorting to entirely personal attacks and name calling forever, while chanting ABO, is not a political discussion.
Main point again: He's not MY RINO squish, and the more important point is that supposedly good people like you did nothing (yes, there's a famous quote for that) to remove the worst, most divisive, morst pro-abort, pro-Marx, pro Muzzie, anti American, anti-everything you claim to love.
Sad is not anywhere near the correct word for that kind of thing.
Best of luck to you, just don't complain about the disaster this man and his minions bring down on your (and my) head.
He's never recanted from that change. The church you denigrate so often Ansell, happens to be pro-life (I am not a Mormon, moron, and yes that's an insult to someone who deserves it), so why do you think it's any less sincere than Reagan's change?
"Purists" like yourself who won't vote to remove the most pro-abort administration ever are simply pathetic. Even if you don't trust Romney (I never did), what in the world are you thinking? Is it even possible for Romney to be any where close to the extremist positions our current white hut occupant holds in every thing?
Once again, you're a pathetic liar for pretending I'm some kind of Romney worshipper, and incredibly stupid to have helped reelect the alternative.
/johnny
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.