The Voters who stayed Home (bitter pill: Republicans re-elected Obama)

National Review Online ^ | 11/10/12 | McCarthy

[pabianice]

The key to understanding the 2012 election is simple: A huge slice of the electorate stayed home.

The punditocracy — which is more of the ruling class than an eye on the ruling class — has naturally decided that this is because Republicans are not enough like Democrats: They need to play more identity politics (in particular, adopt the Left’s embrace of illegal immigration) in order to be viable. But the story is not about who voted; it is about who didn’t vote. In truth, millions of Americans have decided that Republicans are not a viable alternative because they are already too much like Democrats. They are Washington. With no hope that a Romney administration or more Republicans in Congress would change this sad state of affairs, these voters shrugged their shoulders and became non-voters.

“This is the most important election of our lifetime.” That was the ubiquitous rally cry of Republican leaders. The country yawned. About 11 million fewer Americans voted for the two major-party candidates in 2012 — 119 million, down from 130 million in 2008. In fact, even though our population has steadily increased in the last eight years (adding 16 million to the 2004 estimate of 293 million Americans), about 2 million fewer Americans pulled the lever for Obama and Romney than for George W. Bush and John Kerry.

That is staggering.

[Kozak]

You are an idiot. We have a two party system. If you choose not to vote for one, you are enabling the other. If you didn’t EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY VOTING IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, you bought the monkey

[FreeAtlanta]

I have not conceded that we got less votes than McCain did. Something really fishy went on in this election. Yeah, there were some Republicans who stayed home, but the enthusiasm to vote against Obama was huge.

[BfloGuy]

I don’t believe that for a minute. In Texas, the voter turn out DOUBLED.

2004 = 7 million

2008 = 8 million

2012 = 14 million

There are approximately 14 million registered voters in Texas. You mean to tell me they all voted? I don't buy it.

[Ken H]

Suppose Romney ends up with a vote total well ahead of McCain and close to Bush's 62M in 2004. Would that shoot down the 'stay at home voter' argument?

The reason I ask is because that's where Romney's totals are going to end up. See post #129

[Ken H]

See post #129

[hinckley buzzard]

Open primaries are never a good idea. If Steele thought otherwise, he is a moron. If Reince whatsisname thought otherwise, he is a moron too. The national GOP is a diseased organism, and the nation's future depends on overriding their corrupt machinations. The Tea Party movement offers a possible avenue but they too need to get serious about their role.

[OKSooner]

" What were they thinking? "

1) Jeb Bush 2016

Or,

2) It doesn't matter. Call the broker and tell him to sell x, buy y, and hold z. What does matter is preservation of capital and "an equity position" in obamacare.

Or some combination of the two.

[Duchess47]

In Nevada 72% of the voters in my county voted, I believe that the least I saw in any of the counties was 65% however most of them averaged 70+%. That is not voters staying home, that is voters not counted or massive fraud in Clark County, take your pick. I totally agree with you.

[Ken H]

According to http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main, Texas went 4.6M for R and 3.3M for O, with 4% uncounted. By my calculation, that should mean another 170,000 for R.

[Elsie]

You’re just bitter because they only allow one wife in Utah now.

THEY who??

---

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

[roamer_1]

Those who found themselves in some way to ethically superior [...]

It isn't about being 'ethically superior'... It is about a kind or 'recipe' that when cooked properly, smells good to the folks WHO AREN"T politically inclined, and draws them to the kitchen to partake...

This article comes very close to telling the truth: it ain't entirely about 'who voted'. The biggest electorate in the country is the folks who don't. And I would submit that those folks are generally far too busy to bother with it unless there is a very good reason to go.

That recipe is Conservative principles. The 'cooking' is the campaign... Noecons decided to change the recipe... And this is what you get.

'The three legs of the Conservative stool' used to be a part of the political vernacular... And it used to be said that a man had to be able to support all three according to his record - that was the way to victory, because *not* having that record would surely expose unappetizing actions that would cause 'the folks' to become disinterested, and remove the candidate from viability. That USED TO BE the common understanding.

Now it is all about pragmatism and popularity... And what the candidate has DONE can be wholly be forgotten because of what he SAYS on the stump, so long as there's a dab of Brylcreme and a nifty Dentyne schwing is added to his spotless white smile in his campaign ads.

That ain't gonna cut it. it never has and it never will. And neither will 'boogey-man' campaigns, 'up the middle' campaigns to capture independents, or any other bullcrap that changes the recipe. People respond in droves to statesmanship and truth, not politicians and promises.

Here is the truth: You have to... HAVE TO.. give the folks someone to vote *FOR*

[Elsie]

Do you ever look in a mirror and acknowledge that image in the mirror is part of the problem.

Since I have two eyes, it has never occured to me.

[Elsie]

Yeah Elsie, I’ll be lectured by a wacky little religious bigot. No thank you.

Your loss.

Would a talking donkey be more to your liking?

[Elsie]

You naively think that this country can abruptly transition from its current pathetic liberal mindset to conservative mindset OVERNIGHT if we simply run a TRUE conservative candidate. False!

While...

You naively think that this country can abruptly transition from its current pathetic liberal mindset to fully Marxist, KGB mindset OVERNIGHT because we simply failed to elect a decieve MORMON to lead us.

I Like your logic!

[Elsie]

I fault people like you...

Go ahead; if it makes you feel better.

SOMEbody on this thread has wished me dead.

They'd STILL bitch if I didn't then vote for Romney!

[Elsie]

The psychotics like most ABRs are gloating.

Capt. Hyperbole wants his cape back when you're done with it; but he wants the spittle cleaned off better this time.

[Elsie]

They should gloat, look what they did to America and to FR. Very sad.

Perhaps you and GTV and the others who have such a low opinion of others on FR could start your OWN website that caters to TRUE conservatives like yourself.

With your hand over the ZOT button you could make SURE that only YOUR very correct viewpoint is allowed to be expressed.

[Aria]

SELECT a HISPANIC CONSERVATIVE (predict TED CRUZ 2016)

That's actually a good idea. Ideology and color (unfortunately) are just fine but one little question - does he know how to run anything...i.e. a business ...an organization of any sort? I don't know his background.

[Elsie]

I thought the same thing every time I logged on and saw "No Romney! No way!" in bold red letters.

But you thought it was incorrect.

Sad.

[Elsie]

yes you should be proud Obama won and you helped him destroy this country.

QUICK!

Move to Canada!