Posted on 11/13/2008 10:08:36 AM PST by publius1
As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
This bears out another non-reported fact: that McCain attracted women to his campaign -- Dick Morris' gender contention: "Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender...."
but many republicans stayed home because mccain wasn’t ‘good’ enough. I have a lot more respect for these pumas. They have more common sense.
Grasping at straws.
I can’t imagine the large % of Republicans who voted for Obama voting for Hillary. Those Republicans crossed over because they rejected the policies of Bush and bought into the hope and change motto. 9 out of 10 Obama voters disapproved of the Iraq War.
Hillary couldn’t have sold hope and change. She also couldn’t have capitalized as well on the anti-war fervor because she voted for it.
Obama won men by 11% and I can’t imagine that Hillary would have done as well. She might have gotten more women.
Plus, Hillary’s past is an open book, while Obama’s is a closed one.
Hillary might have won, but I think it would have been a lot closer, IMO.
I think Morris’ analysis is correct, Palin clearly has appeal to some women, and I think further exposure of her on a personal level (vs. simply as a campaigner) will cause this to increase.
What puzzles me is why she did not do better with men. Morris (with prompting from O’Reilly) agreed this was due to the economy without explaining why. I may be in a minority but I think many men will endorse and support a strong conservative woman.
Disagree with you there.
If Hillary had been the nominee she would not have lost, and Democrat’s probably would have picked up more seats because some conservatives that held their nose because of Obama would have stayed home with Hillary. Mainly because those two aren’t all that different at the core.
Now I would like to see a poll of how many illegal immigrants, signed up by ACORN, went and voted Democrat.
Many of my male friends up here in the North - did not like her - they thought she was backwards and hickish and she graduated from Idaho - what blasphemy/sarc! They are ignorant, intolerant of other sections of the country and sexism really still does exist esp. w/in the New England Elite area. I would just love for her to keep it up - I know she will change many minds!
“...I have a lot more respect for these pumas. They have more common sense.”
Which pumas are you referring to? The four-legged ones or the menopausal hags, bull dyke lesbians and poofy poofters whose only concern were if McCain/Palin won would Roe v. Wade be overturned and would gay marriage become the law of the land. That crew HAD no intentions of helping McCain/Palin. They put their party before country.
WSJ OPINION
NOVEMBER 13, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122653996148523063.html
History Favors Republicans in 2010
The 2008 election numbers are not as stark as the results.
By KARL ROVE
Political races are about candidates and issues. But election results, in the end, are about numbers.
So now that the dust is settling on the 2008 presidential race, what do the numbers tell us?
First, the predicted huge turnout surge didn’t happen.
The final tally is likely to show that fewer than 128.5 million people voted. That’s up marginally from 122 million in 2004.
But 17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 (three times the change from 2004 to 2008).
Second, a substantial victory was won by modest improvement in the Democratic share of the vote. Barack Obama received 2.1 points more in the popular vote than President Bush received in 2004, 3.1 points more than Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. In raw numbers, the latest tally shows that Mr. Obama received 66.1 million votes, about 7.1 million more than Mr. Kerry.
Four out of five of these additional votes came from minorities. Mr. Obama got nearly 3.3 million more votes from African-Americans than did Mr. Kerry; 2.9 million of them were from younger blacks aged 18-29.
A quarter of Mr. Obama’s improvement among blacks — 811,000 votes — came from African-Americans who voted Republican in 2004.
Mr. Obama also received 2.5 million more Hispanic votes than Mr. Kerry. Over a third of these votes — 719,000 — cast ballots for Republicans in 2004.
One of the most important shifts was Hispanic support for Democrats. John McCain got the votes of 32% of Hispanic voters. That’s down from the 44% Mr. Bush won four years ago. If this trend continues, the GOP will find it difficult to regain the majority.
Mr. Obama won 4.6 million more votes in the West and 1.4 million more in the Midwest than Mr. Kerry. Mr. McCain, on the other hand, got more than 2.6 million fewer votes in the Midwest than Mr. Bush. In Ohio, for example, Mr. Obama received 32,000 fewer votes than Mr. Kerry in 2004 — but Mr. McCain got 360,000 fewer votes than Mr. Bush. That turned a 119,000 vote GOP victory in 2004 into a 206,000 vote Democratic win this year.
Then there were those who didn’t show up.
There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home.
Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted.
There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren’t suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant.
In a sign Mr. Obama’s victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411).
By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).
In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control.
In the South, Mr. Obama had “reverse coattails.”
Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War.
This matters because the 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.
History will favor Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president’s first midterm election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first midterm election in both chambers.
Since 1966, the incumbent party has lost an average of 63 state senate and 262 state house seats, and six governorships, in a president’s first midterm election. That 2010 is likely to see Republicans begin rebounding just before redistricting is one silver lining in an otherwise dismal year for the GOP.
In politics, good years follow bad years. Republicans and Democrats have experienced both during the past 15 years. A GOP comeback, while certainly possible, won’t be self-executing and automatic. It will require Republicans to be skillful at both defense (opposing Mr. Obama on some issues) and offense (creating a compelling agenda that resonates with voters).
And it will require leaders to emerge who give the right public face to the GOP. None of this will be easy. All of this will be necessary.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
the ones that voted for mccain despite their differences.
After McCain backed the bailout, he almost lost my vote.
And sadly, this was the best chance the Maverick had to seperate himself from Obama & Bush, and he totally blew it!
A think a lot of middle of the road democrats and independants would have flocked to McCain if he had taken a tough stance against the bailout.
Another crucial distinction, McCain STILL lost four points among white women. McCain didn't gain anything, he LOST points. I would want to see exit polls specifically based on Palin and not on “may be chalked up..to...”
It has to be true. Its from CBS News.
Hoping noi one missed the point. Republicans did badly this year — a bad campaign with a bad candidate. But I’ve heard so much Palin-junk about the women’s vote that I wanted to check on a couple items. The key item in my posting is that if Hilary would have won (according to the exit poll) by 11, but Obama won by 6, then simple math says that 5% crossed over to vote for McCain — and that they were Hilary supporters.
Gingrich said there was much, much more to the GOP loss than the fact McCain was on the ticket. He said there is something seriously wrong with the party right now and had anyone else been on the ticket the loss would have even been more severe.
Dick Morris also said the same thing years ago. The GOP needs to shed the PERCEPTION that they are the rich, white, old, male party. They need to attract minorities, women, and especially the youth. If the GOP does not do this the socialists will rout conservatives in every election....just like they do in Europe.
The PUMAs got out and volunteered. It was the conservative stay-at-home voters that want to tell everyone else what to do that got us like in 2006. If conservatives stayed home because they didn't like McCain, they also managed to make very close races in the Senate and could give the Dems the 60 seat majority they wanted if we are not careful. I have no respect for any conservative who stayed home or for some idiotic reason voted for Obama. As far as I am concerned they take a flying leap and become a Democrat or a non-registered person as they cannot be counted upon when the Country needed their vote.
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.