Posted on 11/08/2012 11:29:45 AM PST by fifedom
Romney may underperform (or barely match) in turnout the listless McCain in 2008. According to exit polls Romney won white evangelicals by a four-to-one margin—as high or higher than George W. Bush in 2004. Could it have been that many evangelicals couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon, and simply stayed home?
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
I don’t ever want to hear from him again.
He was a crap product in 2008 and he was a crap product this time around too.
The everyman was only attempting to be something greater than his father, not satisfied that he was a success in his own right.
He has nothing in particular to say and particularly uninspiring for his lack of vision.
I voted third party for president for the first time ever this election, because you know what? My vote for president in NYS has been a throwaway vote for every election I've ever voted in. I voted a protest vote.
obama took NY by such a huge margin, as expected, that even if all the third party votes could have been credited to Romney, he STILL wouldn't have had enough to come close to obama.
I had the chance to vote my conscience and did. And I don't feel like a $2 whore either.
Same here...a virtuous vote...
I wrote in another name for the first time in my life...
Willard didnt get any of the states he lives in and has a house..
Not California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire..
Nor Michigan the state he was born and reared in and his dad was gov...
How do you lose all those ???
I was amazed...
McCain is indeed famous for his “reaching across the aisle.” But have you noticed how often Romney says it? He says every bit as much if not more than McCain. Seems an odd place for it, but he said it even in his concession speech.
I have had it with all these RINO’s forever reaching across the aisle. We need real trench fighters for conservatism not compromisers.
Um, because nobody believes you.
I stand by what I said.
How do you lose all those ???
Um, because nobody believes him.
I’ll sleep tonight.
My conscience is clear before God because I didn’t vote for a baby killing, homosexual marriage supporting , Romneycare instituting, big government, socialist.
***but to his credit, at least he’s been up front and honest to some degree about what he plans to do. ***
Like a male Cassandra, he told the truth about what he wanted to do to the US, and like Cassandra’s curse, no one believed him.
And TROY burned.
I STAND BY WHAT I SAID.
Fine.
But I accept no blame or condemnation for my vote because it didn’t count anyway and never would have.
History repeats itself.
I REPEAT, I STAND BY MY EVERY WORD.
My opinion, for what it’s worth - somewhere in Cuyahoga county, OH; Somewhere in Miami-Dade county, FL; somewhere in several other liberal-controlled counties are piles of shredded ballots cast by people that chose Romney. I don’t think people stayed home in quite the numbers that they did when McCain ran.
McCain was extremely lame. Yes, Sarah helped him a good deal, but he was lame compared to Romney. Not that Mitt was the bastion of conservatism but compared to the commie punk that now occupies the White House, he’s Ronald Reagan!
That said, the election is over. Time to go on the offensive again. We moved the house big time in 2010. We know what the winning formula is, and it isn’t liberalism or liberalism-lite - it’s conservatism with an emphasis on fiscal control and freedom. That’s what it’s always been.
When you attack the most conservative group in America because turnout numbers were somewhat down in voting for a quasi conservative, while 80% of them voted for Romney yet only approx. 50% of Catholics voted likewise, then it seems like someone is trying to divert attention away from another religious group.
What would have happened if the other groups voted like evangelicals, or is that a question that is to be avoided?
>How did white Evangelicals compare to other voter segments...in staying home or not?
Answer: They were 24% of the voting block in 2012; 23% in 2008; 21% in 2004.
Which religious voter groups turned out significantly less in 2012? (a) OTHER white Protestants — not Evangelicals; (b) white Catholics
Per Pew Forum white Protestants dropped from 42% of the pie in 2008 to 39% in 2012...keep in mind, tho, that the mainline denominations are “aging” & unless a Dem “resurrects” a dead voter, they don’t vote from the grave...
Still, 42% of about 132,654 (2008) vs. 39% of about 128 million is a drop-off of over 4 million voters!
Also, white Catholics dropped from 19% in 2008 to 18% in 2012...Because the voter pool was smaller in 2012, that’s about 2 million LESS white Catholics turning out...(I estimate a drop from just over 25 million to just over 23 million)...obviously some of them died and weren’t replaced by younger Catholic voters.
Note also that Pew Forum’s exit polling showed that more white Evangelicals, %-wise, voted for Romney than even Mormons! Pew Forum says the breakdowns were 79-20% by white Evangelicals; and 78-21% by Lds! <
Thanks for the research.
I find it incredulous that with 80% of the Evangelicals who voted voting for Romney, that someone would think that it’s a credible accusation to make against them that they sat out the election because they didn’t like his politics.
Say what?
It makes no sense.
I agree! If you look back to the Republican primaries, there were not very many "true" Conservatives running - at least not ones that excite us enough to get behind 100% - and every negative the Dems dragged out on Romney, were the SAME ones used against him in the primary BY fellow Republicans. That's something we here were shouting about and STILL he got the nomination. What did NOT help at all was Romney essentially agreeing with Obama on nearly every single point in the last debate. Voters did not see much air between them so what happens is the incumbent reaps the benefit.
The voters became convinced (those that were teetering between the two) that it was six of one, half a dozen of another, so they chose to give Obama a chance to continue "repairing" the country. You and I both know his idea of "change" in America is not what we want nor need, but the fence-sitters saw no need to start all over again with a newby.
Once we get to 2016, IF we still can, we can hopefully have this figured out and run a solid candidate that reflects the values 50% at least of the country still does and that will also appeal to those voters who are, by now, well sick and done with Liberal ideas after they have eight years to decimate what is left of our economy and country.
Here's a little prediction of mine that I have been mulling for a few days - I think Joe Biden will soon decide he is ready to resign (illness, family, who knows) and Obama will name Hilary! as his new veep. This will put her in place to run for president in 2016. This will be the payback for her faithful kowtowing to Obama as his SOS and also lending Bill to speak well about him at the convention helping his reelection. Plus, I think they will have agreed to bury for good all the dirt they have stored up on Obama so it never sees the light of day and spoil his "legacy". No crystal ball, but it does not seem so far out there to be probable. We'll see.
The GOP lost the election even before the convention, they way the run the primaries is asinine, too many candidates, too many debates with moderators who only wanted to make them all look bad and further damage the GOP’s image with the voters.
Next time, start with 3 candidates, THAT’S IT!!! No more stupid debates between them that only provide fodder for late night comedians.
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.