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 ...
So if the Dems don’t nominate a black socialist, they’re toast. Wonder if Hillary knows this?
If Romney at the end of his term in office as governor of Massachusetts had only 34% approval from the voters in THAT state.....he must have done something right.
Are you kidding? You think that nothing is to be gained by looking at elaborate, expensive, costly disasters, that we lose an election that couldn't be lost, and we don't ask why?
The only thing Romney did that was “right” and earned him the disapproval was to label himself a Republican. Witness the fact that Brown was able to take a Senate seat on opposing Obama. Once he was found out to be a fraud, he lost support from both sides as well.
Why learn things when it’s so much easier to invent them and make gullible voters think a hard leftist (moderate my arse) is a conservative and it is a patriotic duty to elect him?
We taught him and the Republican Party a lesson they didn’t forget for a day or two.
We taught the GOP that we will eat anything they serve. We taught them we will moderate and they ran right out and pushed gun control, homosexual marriage and immigration ‘reform’ where previously they had not.
It is a fact that Romney won the white vote by about 20%. The fact ALONE would have guaranteed Romney a landslide victory like Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984 had demogrpahic factors not changed so drastically these last two or three decades. In my state alone-—California-—whites are now less than 40% of the population. Republicans cannot get elected dogcatcher out here anymore. But CA used to be a red state in presidential voting behavior. From 1952 to 1992 the GOP won every presidential race in CA (except for 1964). Changing demographics have since turned CA into a solid blue state. Ronald Reagan could no longer come close to winning an election here in CA with our current electorate.
Or as the late, great, Dandy Don would say, “If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.”
His handlers undoubtedly knew that but the one thing they never sullied their hands with was getting more Republican voters ~ not even 100,000 out of the 90,000,000 people who don't vote!
You seem devoted to fantasy.
When the fourth republican governor in a row in a state is a dismal failure and leaves office with 34% approval and turns the state over to the democrats, then that is evidence of his incompetency, not a resume for appointing him leader of the national republican party and it’s presidential candidate.
Romney’s loss against Jimmy Carter the second was predictable by just looking at his political career.
My point is, why look at 2004 turnout figures?? They mean absolutely nothing eight years later and especially with three wave elections in between. It is absolutely useless research.
We know why Romney lost, because he was a sucky, moderate candidate in the same mold as all the other moderate losers. He was shoved down the republican electorate’s throat despite everybody being for literally everybody but him. And people are wasting their time going back to 2004 and saying “well golly gee, Ma, if only the same people that voted eight years ago had voted last November, why Romney would be president!” Why stop at 2004? How about 1856, check those numbers.
In fact, it's one of those stories that pretty much blames the victims first.
Well, sure — but the point’s moot, because the country has turned sharply leftward in its ideology since 2004. Many states that were once competitive are now conquered territory.
DD was awesome...
The Conservatives showed up. Others did not.
Yea...they traded principles for a win and lost both.
The fault is totally due to Bishop RomneyCARE who
imposed gay marriage and ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE,
and who attacked conservatives, demanded to be defended
by his WIFE while HE was a limp RINO.
One thing that gives me hope is seeing that Obama won 51% of the vote to Romney’s 47.2% with only 58% eligible actually voting. This means the actual numbers from all eligible voters are Obama 29.6%, Romney 27.4% and 42% didn’t vote for anybody. So only 29.6% of the people who could vote, voted for him. Gives me hope for the next election. Run Sarah.
The GOP/RNC gave us Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney ... 3 out of 4 LOSERS... Yet - we are told that if we have a Conservative - a real one - as a candidate we will lose ... Hmmmmm? How would anyone know that since it has not been tried?
In the 2012 elections - People wanted a choice not just a color difference...
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.