Posted on 01/19/2013 8:53:03 AM PST by Kaslin
The best thing about math is that it’s a constant. The numbers are what they are. That’s why I’m a data guy, because as a person that believes in absolute truth I have a tendency to like things cut and dried.
Leading up to the 2012 election several lies and clever myths were postulated by the ruling class know-it-alls and the charlatans who act on their behalf, and you can bet they will continue peddling their wares this year in light of the results. But the beauty of real numbers is they cut through all the horse puckey right to the real truth. To prepare you for the onslaught of misinformation between now and 2016 from both the mainstream media and the Republican Party establishment, I have prepared a handy guide of real information to arm you with the truth.
Lie and clever myth #1: Republicans lose elections because they’re too conservative so independents side with Democrats.
TRUTH: Romney won independent voters in the crucial battleground states of Virginia and Ohio, two of the three states he had to win to win the presidency. In Florida, the other battleground state Romney had to have, he actually did 8 points better among independents than McCain did in 2008. In Colorado, Romney won independents by four points, which was 14 points better than McCain performed there four years ago.
Lie and clever myth #2: Romney lost because of the GOP’s alleged “war on women” so that means Republicans can’t be pro-life anymore.
TRUTH: What the GOP really has is a diversity problem. White voters in every demographic – including women and young voters – voted for Romney. Let me repeat that: a majority of white voters regardless of age and gender voted for Romney. For example, Romney won white women by 14 points. A massive turnout of racial and ethnic minorities – black turnout was equal to 2008 and the Hispanic turnout was a little higher – determined the election and gave Obama the support he needed to win.
Lie and clever myth #3: The Republicans energized their base, but it’s just shrinking so the party has to move left.
TRUTH: Remember the promises of 17 million evangelicals going to the polls that didn’t in 2008? Or perhaps you were sold on that Catholic voter backlash to Obamacare and its threat to religious freedom turning out values voters in a way Romney was incapable? Well, it turns out that neither happened.
The reality is 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals voted in 2012 than 2008. Fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than 2008 as well, despite the presence of two Catholic vice presidential candidates. 6.4 million Evangelicals actually voted for Obama. In the crucial battleground state of Ohio, Obama actually improved his white Evangelical turnout by 8% compared to four years ago. That’s probably because of the automobile bailout, but also pro-choice television ads Romney was running in Ohio that angered some pro-lifers. Romney also ran those pro-choice television ads in Virginia, and CNN’s exit polls found the Evangelical turnout declined by 7% compared to 2008.
Yes, Romney did get the same hefty percentage of Evangelical voters that George W. Bush got in his victorious 2004 campaign, but the turnout wasn’t as large.
Efforts to make Romney’s liberal record on social issues seem palatable in contrast to President Obama’s leftist social policies didn’t pan out, as yet again the social conservative base of the Republican Party proved it doesn’t turn out in full force unless it sees stark differences between the two candidates themselves—regardless of what a candidate’s proxies say. Apparently when Romney told the Chick-fil-a crowd last August you’re “not a part of my campaign” they got the message.
But Christians weren’t the only social conservatives Romney failed to successfully turn out. Get this: Romney even did worse among his fellow Mormons than George W. Bush did in 2004 if you can believe that.
Conclusion
Romney lost the election in the end because his base wasn’t as energized as Obama’s was. All the so-called “skewed” polling that pointed to an Obama turnout of Democrats similar to 2008 turned out to be correct.
If you count the 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals that voted compared to 2008, and the 6.4 million Evangelicals that voted for Obama, a future Republican nominee has almost 9 million potential new voters in 2016 if he actually reaches out to them credibly and consistently.
Adding a majority of those 9 million voters to Romney’s 2012 coalition would make the Republican nominee virtually unbeatable in 2016. But to accomplish that feat he or she will have to make them feel welcome in the party, and assure them that he or she shares their courage of conviction.
These patriots want something to vote for and not just against.
Persistent future attempts to sell them on milquetoast while scaring them into voting against dastardly Democrats may profit those doing the selling, but will likely result in even more of them staying home four years from now—and thus the GOP losing the popular vote for the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections.
The real numbers show patriots are growing increasingly tired of being asked to cast votes they know they won’t be proud of later. Modernization of the Republican Party is one thing, but moderation is another.
The GOP leadership now has a choice: stand for something and win, or stand for nothing and lose. It appears its base won’t move left with it, so if the party moves left it will need a new base.
Here’s a very illuminating example from Norway while the islamics were pushing for 8and got, to some degree) gag orders against public criticism.
TV-program, one of the well-known conservatives against a local cair lookalike. The conservative cited numbers, what really happens with muslim terror. Just statistics.
The muslim claimed that since arguments like that could not be defended against, they have to be silenced.
In your face.
Nonsense, why does fail to mention vote fraud?
True. On the flip side, if we aren't smart enough to vote against Obama, we might as well just curl up in a ball and wait for the meds nurse to come by with the cart of "happinesss". Oh nurse....
The evangelical vote must have been black evangelicals.
but hey! As long as the morons keep getting their obamaphones, they'll be happy.
Egggsactly! Look at the number of precincts or counties that voted 90 plus percent or even OVER 100 percent for Obama. This election would have been close except for the Chicago style, Communist Union backed thievery that was employed to insure the Kenyan/Marxists re-election. Romney never had a prayer against such tactics and just for the record neither will any but a "Progressive" candidate in the next election should Obama consent to allow one.
Because he’s a numbers guy, and there are no numbers available on total vote fraud.
Is this true, does anyone know anything about this?
I like what you did there.
With Obama POTUS is actually a POS and we should consistently designate him as such.
And SCOTUS is mostly SCROTUMLESS other than Scalia, Thomas and Alito! We are SOL if Kennedy and Ginsburg dump in the next 4 years. At least (the McCainesque) Kennedy promised to wait until this POS was out.
Voter fraud had definitely a lot to do with it. Also that 0bama was planning to steal the election from the beginning. Why was he so sure that he was going to get reelected? It would not have mattered who our candidate was. Of course on the other side the divisions on our side did not help us either
Not that I know of. There were plenty of straight 100's (59 / 1500 in Philly) but none over 100. No 140% turnout either, only 70% times a two page ballot.
On the flip side, if we aren't smart enough to vote FOR a believer in a known heresy...
60 million American babies have been kill because of this postition.
View Mitt’s pro-abortion ad here:
The spot features a disappointed former Obama supporter who does a little of the ol’ Google thing and learns that Mitt Romney “doesn’t oppose contraception at all” and “thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life.”
http://vox-nova.com/2012/10/19/mitt-romneys-pro-choice-ad/
Also bearing in mind that the actual swearing-in is tomorrow in a private ceremony, and will most likely be done on a koran or a little red book.
It is ever more clear just what a disaster that you guys brought to the GOP and conservatism and America.
Why in God’s name did you work so hard to get a candidate who couldn’t even defeat Jimmy Carter the second?
But after Romney was nominated, I voted for him. A stay-home was equivalent to a vote for Obama.
Would Romney have called for an ''assault'' weapons ban and then use federal agencies to enforce his will while breaking the law? I doubt it.
Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.
Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.
I could go on and on. Yes, Romney sucked. But he was nowhere near as bad as Obama. Nowhere.
Here you are still hacking for Romney, countering criticism of him, protecting and defending the choice, as others want to make sure that such an insanity is not again visited on us.
Four years away from the next presidential election, and instead of working to hammer home the disaster of nominating such a freakish and bizarre candidate you are working to defend the choice, to keep the possibility of a repeat, alive.
And you really don’t want to learn the facts about Assault Weapons bans and Mitt Romney.
Also bearing in mind that the actual swearing-in is tomorrow in a private ceremony, and will most likely be done on a koran or a little red book.
You have insight into all kinds of things!
Remember the mantra: "The OTHER conservatives we vote for will hold Mitt's feet to the fire and make him go the right direction.
Well; where ARE they??
All I see now is a Conservative group that is rubbing the Emperors feet by the hearth, soothing them with appeasement.
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.