Posted on 11/08/2012 5:39:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Conservatives need to take a collective breath and look closer at the numbers before they buy into the idea that GOP nominee Mitt Romney's defeat was due to some kind of national demographic shift that now makes Democrat presidential candidates' armor impenetrable. Before you give in to the hysteria, here are a few things to keep in mind.
First, Barack Obama's re-election showing was actually pretty unimpressive for a guy whose philosophies voters have supposedly adopted. As of this writing on Wednesday, Obama's vote total stood at an unimpressive 60,119,958. That's about what John Kerry got in 2004 (59,028,444). President George W. Bush actually did far better than Obama in his 2004 reelection quest, posting a vote total that was about 2 million higher (62,040,610) than what Obama got on Tuesday. That's hardly a remarkable finish in a country with a population that has increased. In fact, it's a decline of 9 million votes from Obama's 2008 total.
Had Romney (57,425,441) done as well as McCain did in 2008 (59,934,814), he and Obama would have run neck and neck, virtually matching each other's vote totals. That's hardly the stuff of demographic ruin.
The question Republicans and conservatives need to ask is not why voters showed up for Obama, whose turnout wasn't exactly extraordinary, but why millions of their own voters, people who had pulled the lever for Bush and McCain, didn't do the same for Romney or simply stayed home.
Why did Romney get a full 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did? Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney? Who were they and where did they go? That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.
Is it possible that Republicans and conservative leaning independents just weren't that wild about the guy?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yep, No fire in the belly. Never had his “I paid for this microphone” moment. No guts. No glory.
RE: A long vanity thread I ran yesterday
Could you show me the link please... Thanks.
He didn’t need but the 286,000 well placed votes to win it.
And those votes didn’t show up in those states until AFTER they knew what they needed to win.
I don't think that explains much, if anything. Of course some voters die, voters of all ideologies. But young people become old enough to vote and every voters age by four years between each presidentail election.
And many younger voters who'd voted liberal for a time get hit with the reality of real life and eventually become conservative, thus adding to the conservative voters.
The makeup of the voter population isn't static at the older or younger end. There's always some movement in and out of all political parties.
The big thing I find remarkable is his election win this year with a few minor adjustments to numbers was nearly identical to his first shall we say fraud. What are the chances of that happening?
As are those who decided to "stand on principle," and vote for a "real conservative" or a write-in candidate.
Where the GOP lost was among the age groups 18-29 (60% to 37%) and 30-44 (52% to 45%). They comprised 46% of the electorate. Romney won the other age groups but by a narrower margin.
My own theory is that the changing demographics of this country is what is fueling this disparity. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as defined by the USG. Each year a cohort turns 18 and becomes eligible to vote, it will be composed more and more of minorities who overwhelmingly by two to one vote Dem. Our immigration policies are driving most of these changes. The Dems are well on their way to becoming the permanent majority party.
The way to turn women around is to get them married!
Although, that’s getting tougher to do... Because, men don’t WANT To get married while they’ve got barely-above-minimum wage jobs.
As I look at the data, what jumps out at me is... Hispanic and Asian minorities. They were HUGELY for Obama. We’ve got to cut into that lead. Both groups have significant numbers of people who are conservative in their personal philosophy. There’s no reason they should not feel welcome in the Republican Party.
We’ve allowed ourselves to be painted as “against them” because of our oppostion to amnesty for illegals. That’s nonsense... but, Dems have convinced them. Somehow, we’ve got to get immigration reform settled and find a way to connect with their self-identification.
Problem is, I don’t see how that’s possible with Obama and Reid comprising 2 of three part of he negotiation.
Where the GOP lost was among the age groups 18-29 (60% to 37%) and 30-44 (52% to 45%). They comprised 46% of the electorate. Romney won the other age groups but by a narrower margin.
Bump for later read
We WON those groups...among white voters.
Our problem is: Minorities. There are just MORE of them. Especially in the younger age groups.
We don't have to WIN among minorities.. but, we can't lose 70-87% of them, and expect to win...EVER.
In Ohio, not all the votes are counted, yet. The Provisionals will take a while.
THAT SAID, Republicans turned out BETTER on Ohio in 2012, than in 2008, by at least 85,000.
Dem turnout was down 15,000.
It’s not that Repubs didn’t show up in the key states, it’s that the Dems ground game was far better, despite the Romney Campaign’s historic ground game.
I’m going to reject that analysis.
Romney did respond to the ads, it’s just the mainstream media refused to PLAY the responses. Watching the evening news shows, every cut allowed was Romney RESPONDING to something about Obama for two seconds. That’s it...
We can register all the people in the world, but it won’t mnatter if we can’t get the messages out above the din created by an ENEMY MEDIA...
Certainly :-)
Why Obama Won - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2956589/posts
The changing demographics of the voting population has made me realize that we have to sit down and do a thorough analysis of who the people casting votes are and how we can reach them. Won't be easy, may take time, but I really believe that it can be done
We know that dependency leads to enslavement, but how do we get that message to women who have been dependent for several generations.
Sad part, the ones who are paying the price are these women's sons. Who's most likely to die of a violent crime? Young, black, urban males. That's the cost of relying on the government instead of a man for support.
Catholics gave him 48%.
That's the percentages that showed up to vote. What was the percentage of Evangelicals actually went to the polls.
The 2008 election with much higher turnout was still only 61% of the eligible voter pool. This election was lower.
You are exactly right.
The flip side of your proposition is that young men in our society have increasingly and most willingly abdicated their traditional roles as providers and protectors. And they have done so in favor of: moral vacuity, passivity, rootless, solipsism and an almost preternatural aversion to personal responsibility.
We have met the Enemy and they are Us. Blame the government and politicians and their vote-buying machines all you want. Ultimately, the problem lies with the electorate. In our role as responsible citizens of a Constitutional Republic: we suck.
McCain did better because of Palin.
Is the national exit polling for Catholics made up all the states or what? I mean there should be a state by state breakdown somewhere if that is the case, and I can’t find it. I have found one article that says Ohio Catholics went for Romney by + 9 points, but everything else just seems to be a national number, which is pretty useless.
Freegards
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.