Posted on 11/07/2012 7:11:45 PM PST by Strategerist
Comparing 2008 vote totals to 2012 (with some numbers projected, as for example Colorado only has 90% of the votes in) overall in VA, NC, OH, NH, PA, FL, MI, MN, WI, CO, IA, NV (all states were also battleground states in 2008) Romney had 21,674,900 votes to 20,300,366 for McCain in those states, for a 6.8% advantage.
In every individual battleground state Romney turnout was higher than McCain, from 20.4% higher in Nevada to 0.6% higher in PA. Ohio Romney turnout was 7.3% higher than McCain.
In the non-battleground state of NY, Romney had 6.6% LESS turnout than McCain. Interestingly in CA Romney turnout was up 5.1%, and in TX it was up 5.9%.
1) All the votes aren't in
And probably because:
2) In SOME non-competitive obvious Blue or Red States without competitive Senate or Governor races as well, because of the greater understanding and prominence of polling these days, people just stayed home since their votes didn't matter.
You may now proceed to shoot the messenger.
MI, MN, WI were not battleground states.
Here is a brief summary of just how well Mitt Romney did in shifting voters toward him in 2012 versus what took place in 2008:
Barack Obama netted FEWER Democrat votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.
Mitt Romney earned MORE Republican votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.
Read more in News
« Rush Limbaugh On 2012 Election – “Nation Of Children, Santa Claus Wins”
Barack Obama earned FEWER Black votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.
Mitt Romney by the way, earned MORE Black votes in 2012 than were cast for the Republican in 2008.
Mitt Romney earned MORE votes from both married men and married woman than were cast for Republicans in 2008, while also improving support among non-married men and woman by 2% from 2008 as well.
Mitt Romney earned MORE votes among liberals, moderates, and conservatives than were cast for the Republican candidate in 2008 – in fact, this improvement was by a full 7% over 2008 – a very significant improvement.
Mitt Romney earned more votes from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews than the Republican nominee received in 2008, including a 9-point improvement among Jewish voters alone.
The two top issues according to voters were the economy and the budget. Mitt Romney earned A 38 POINT ADVANTAGE OVER BARACK OBAMA on the top two issues of the election – and yet Romney was somehow defeated.
Lastly, regarding the following three personal trait issues – strong leader, shares my values, and has a vision for the future, Mitt Romney DOMINATED Barack Obama among 2012 voters by 45 points. And lost the election.
___________________________
Here is the link to the data via the Washington Post. It is stunning, some might even say inconceivable, that a candidate improves in such categories as overall votes among Whites AND minorities, is ranked far ahead of their opponent in both the top two concerns among voters, as well as the three most important personal trait issues – and still loses the election.
That is exactly what happened last night. Somehow, someway…that is what happened to Mitt Romney – and to all who supported him.
See link below – and the dramatic shift in Republicans’ favor in 2012 vs 2008. A shift the resulted in a confounding loss that remains dubious at best…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/
Who cares?
We need to move beyond this. Right now.
We need to take over the GOP, bring back American jobs, and take our country back.
Thanks, and yeah, Freepers are a little frantic today...
Obama spent the last four years, while Harry Reid was running the government, building his reelection ground game.
I am glad to hear this.
Good to know. However, given R/R’s huge advantage in fundraising over McCain, the difference should have been much higher. Especially with the SuperPacs.
There are some people posting incomplete turnout information in an effort to make a case for Palin. There isn’t one. While completely unfair, at this point Palin is just too divisive - too many women dislike her and the media has had too long to turn her into something of a joke outside of GOP circles.
Palin is not going to join some dopey 3rd party and she isn’t likely to run for President. Folks should really let that bit of silliness go right now. She is doing a good job as an analyst on Fox News, and I suspect that is what she will continue doing.
It seems the turnout model ran smack dab into electoral reality.
They had a four year head start. You know that their organization OFA had permanent offices in Ohio, Florida and here in VA and in NC (to a lesser extent). They had people on the ground setting the stage for this election starting in early 2009. All those OFA people were getting paid by Soros money and some were even getting local college and high schools to give credit for kids coming to “intern”.
These people live a breath this stuff and we only concern ourselves when elections come around.
They have been polling and walking the streets asking questions for over four years. There is no way you can defeat that with a six month presence, just none.
Right on schedule.
Whitehouse Insider @ulsterman... I think this election was stolen, possibly setup between both parties...
here’s my issue- we’ve got the Koch Brothers, people like Alderson and probably even Trump with big bank accounts- why doesn’t the GOP do this??? why do they sit around and be passive-reactive???
and i’m not asking to do this three years in advance- bit how about last January when the primaries started???
Well the idea is that this mythical “base” of millions of people that hasn’t voted in a Presidential election since 1988 because all of our candidates are RINOs (and lets be honest, GWB was a RINO to a lot of people) would turn out for Palin or a Palin-alike.
Even if that’s true, the likely effect would be to turn out 5% more Republicans in Mississippi or Texas, which would increase EV totals by....nada.
And you’d certainly lose more moderate votes than base votes you’d gain in places like Ohio and Virginia.
Yup, you are right.
Thanks for posting these numbers.
Defeating any incumbent president is serious, difficult and expensive business, especially w a president coddled and protected by the MSM. Since 1900, only 4 presidents were denied re-election, three of whom were primaried. (Excluding Ford since he was never elected in his own right). Moreover, of the 4 defeated incumbents, only one was a Dem, Carter.
The race was this: Romney ran better than his campaign. Obama’s campaign ran much better than Obama.
They had a 4-yr invisible army that was missed or dismissed.
by last January, it would have been too late, IMO. They already had two election cycles plus countless local elections to prepare their models based on issues that could be translated to a national level. Now, without the same presence, they will not be able to replicate this and I’m not sure we will see the same commitment unless Hillary runs. and I’m not sure we see the same financial commitment if the economy takes a deeper dive. Even Soros has his limits.
We laughed at the term “community organizer”, well this is what it translated to.
their goal was simply 271. They get to 271, they win regardless of the national percentage. It was never about a majority, it was always about 271.
Unless someone can figure out a way to make states like NY, CA and TX competitive, it has turned into a ten state election and the reality is that we need a very aggressive presence in those states year round, collecting data, testing models and testing messages.
That isn’t cheap.
yeh- but you know the GOP always seems to be johnny come lately with this stuff...social media, etc....
Thanks Strategerist. He had a higher turnout, LET’S BLAME HIM!
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.