Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Qbert

“Why did Romney get a full 2 million 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?”

O.K., I’ll buy that aaalysis as far as looking at the national popular vote total, and national demographics

I am not sure we will be as impressed with what we find, on an electoral college basis - maybe, maybe not

like in the case of Ohio, the “missing” GOP vote is under 15,000; while Obama lost 300K plus, but it only reduced his margin of victory to 50.1% instead of the 2008 figure of 52.3% - a very blue state, with enough blues to spare that even a low turnout does not knock the Dim candidate out

so, yes we need to understand the MAJOR GOP no shows, but in doing so we need to concentrate and WHERE they are

in some places they may have made a difference, in some very blue places maybe not


35 posted on 11/08/2012 8:46:54 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wuli

Its really a lot more complicated than who did or didn’t show up.

Here in Michigan Debbie Stabenow got more votes than Obama.

2,594,617 Stabenow to 1,708,256 Hoekstra

2,432,113 Obama to 2,040,175 Romney

To further skew things, the unions who largely turned out for the democrats were crushed on their ballot proposals.


40 posted on 11/08/2012 9:01:35 AM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Wuli

“like in the case of Ohio, the “missing” GOP vote is under 15,000; while Obama lost 300K plus, but it only reduced his margin of victory to 50.1% instead of the 2008 figure of 52.3% - a very blue state, with enough blues to spare that even a low turnout does not knock the Dim candidate out
so, yes we need to understand the MAJOR GOP no shows, but in doing so we need to concentrate and WHERE they are...”

Just a thought here.

Obviously, most Freepers would encourage conservatives in a deep-blue state such as Illinois to move to a more conservative state for a better future.

But what about conservatives in a battleground rust-belt state such as Ohio?

Let’s say conservative Ohioans start moving out for greener pastures and better opportunities in solidly-red states.

Over time, this is going to have the effect of making Ohio a “bluer” state, and will seal its tilt to the left.

Same thing in a state like Virginia. Only an hour ago, I read a thread here on FR from a Freeper in Northern Virginia, contemplating a move to “redder pastures”, and asking other Freepers for advice. If there are many more like him, and they relocate en masse, VA will soon become “forever blue”.

The only way to reverse this would be for conservatives to start moving in the opposite direction into battleground states, with the intent of “taking them over” for conservatism. I just don’t foresee that happening. If anything, we are seeing liberals flee from the ultra-blue states like New York, New Jersey and California into purple states such as Colorado, North/South Carolina, and Florida. And as they arrive, they will bring their liberalism with them. Thus, in this election (as in 2008), we saw the purple states vote blue. I think it’s almost time to move [formerly designated] battleground states such as Colorado, Virginia and Florida OUT of “battleground” status and into the “leans blue” category.

You may be in one of those states, and you may disagree, but that’s how I see it.

I personally believe it’s going to be a long shot to coax Ohio to vote Republican in a presidential contest again. And we all know what that means...


58 posted on 11/08/2012 10:18:05 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson