Posted on 06/01/2013 5:31:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
White and Hispanic turnout fell from 2004 to 2012, according to a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies based on newly-released U.S. Census data.
Had turnout equaled what it was in 2004, 4.7 million more whites would have voted in 2012, of which 4.2 million were not college graduates, according to the study.
Obama received five million more votes than Romney.
“As Republicans think about how they can expand their voter base, the new data suggest that one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home,” said Steven Camarota, CIS’ director of research and author of the report. CIS favors low levels of legal immigration
“These voters, who have been hit hard by the recession, have traditionally supported Republicans,” Camarota said. “It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters.”
To win the popular vote with female support, Romney would have needed four extra percentage points of the women’s vote (48 percent rather than the 44 he actually received), with each percentage point equating to 714,000 votes.
To earn the popular vote with blacks and Hispanics, Romney would have needed an extra 15 or 23 percentage points, respectively. But the statistics regarding whites demonstrated how closely the Republican candidate came to a plurality win.
With one percentage point of the white vote equating to 980,000 votes, Romney would have won the popular vote with a mere three percent greater turnout.
Excuse me, you idiot, but we would have had much less chance of recovering with leftist amoral Romney destroying what little is left of true Republican limited government principle. YOU exhibited no-brainer behavior by believing there was such thing as voting "against" Obama or anything else. You voted for Romney -- pal, you voted FOR more and bigger nanny state government, you voted FOR promoting gay rights and depriving Americans of their God-given right to decline to participate in the homosexual charade, you voted FOR nationalized health care, you voted FOR retaining Roe v Wade, you voted FOR supporting the environmentalist hoax power-grab agenda, etc. You voted FOR supporting the entire liberal agenda because you refused to accept the hard, cold fact that on any ballot, you only get to vote FOR something. Even on ballot propositions, you don't get to vote against something, you only vote FOR nixing it or FOR implementing it.
You are the poster child for Einstein's definition of insanity.
You are absolutely the one who never learns.
In a lot of ways, Rush is clueless.
Amen, Brother FReeper!!!!
Excellently well-said, and your tagline, too. Amen.
So, you’re saying you voted for Obama.
this is a too generic “what if”...it depends on where the votes would be cast.
Uhh...just a second here.
Romney might be a political weasel, willing to say this and that to get elected, but he is a decent person and loves the USA. Unlike your guy...he is not a card carrying communist/packer/jihadist hell bent on enacting every bit of those agendi plus getting even with "whitey"with extreme prejudice.
No I didn't. Unlike you, I voted against him.
"Failing to get the nomination" is a bad test when the system is being manipulated; if you'll recall, there were retroactive rule-changes to the GOP primaries [for at least one state] which, in the incident I'm thinking of, were made to strip Ron Paul of delegates (in favor for Romney) to send to the RNC.
I had a bit of a discussion w/ newnhdad about the 'conservative purity'/Romney-loss [link]:
There were plenty of people on here and other websites and boards that claimed ideological purity by either not supporting Romney or just throwing a vote away on a candidate that had no chance to win, just to send a message.Now I'll put in my disclosure: I have come to hate and despise the Republican party. Fast & Furious in particular drove home that they are in no manner concerned with upholding the law, doing justice, or doing anything that would "rock the boat". The dirty tactics pushing Romney (Mr of-course-I-support-abortion-in-the-case-of-incest-and-rape-and-the-mother's-health [code meaning "for any reason"]) just as the Republican party officially added "not even in the case of rape or incest" to its official anti-abortion plank shows one thing: the GOP will say anything, but do nothing [or even the opposite]. I hate them because they are liars, and thieves [they have stolen my liberty, if nothing else], and statists.Ok, you have to understand that a rejection of Romney is not a plea for ideological purity -- but a plea against homogenous ideology as Obama.
They are both socialists, and Statists.Indeed, the primaries and Republican National Convention were dirty -- with "democrat-style" manipulations:
The teleprompter incident, where the 'result' of the votes appeared before the vote had finished.
The bus-driver incident, where an entire delegation was forced to miss the rule-change vote.
The proposed rule changes themselves, which showed the statist/totalitarian heart of the GOP's elite.
The retroactive rule-change in the primaries to deny Ron Paul supporters delegates (and gave them to Romney) because they successfully rules-lawyered delegates.Are those the sorts of things we want in our leadership? Are those things even what "conservatism" is about?
If by 'conservatism' you mean "keeping things the same", then yes, it is what conservatism is about.Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would “destroy the party”.
That was doomed to happen: the republican party stood for nothing, and so fell.
Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didn’t attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
None of that is why I did not vote Romney; I did not vote for Romney because he is the same as Obama: a socialist. Ideologically the only difference is that Romney is a Fabian-socialist (incrementalism) and Obama is more of a holistic-actor.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty.
Really? When I was in the Army, in `08/`09, it was made perfectly clear to me that there would be no challenge of Obama's qualifications; this has been borne-out across the civilian-world as well. Those in power have no respect for the Law (see LTC Lakin's courts martial), and this will not likely change with mere elections. (Even if we got a 'good' President, the congress has no problem passing contra-constitutional laws [see the NFA and GCA], and the courts have no compunction against allowing it [see Wickard, Raich, Kelo, and/or Affordable Care Act]).
More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
NO! ROMNEY WOULD NOT PUT US ON A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE MOST HE WOULD DO IS MAKE SUPERFICIAL CHANGES: A KINDER, GENTLER (MORE ACCEPTABLE) TYRANNY.
If you don’t like what I have to say, fine but please don’t tell me to stop.
I've not told you to stop; but your whole argument for a socialist is disgusting.
Romney's liberal positions were in the third area (abortion, gay agenda, etc.) and he was at least pretending to be pro-life in 2012 (vs. Obama being even more fanatically pro-abortion than the average Democratic politician). In this area he might have been more of a Gerald Ford/G. H. W. Bush "moderate" so we'd be unhappy with some of his actions but he couldn't have been as bad as Obama--at worst a Mussolini to Obama's Hitler.
Romney played it too safe--I recall a column by Victor Davis Hanson a few days before the election predicting that Romney's failure to go after Obama while expecting the bad economy to decide the election would be a disaster and he was right.
The problem is to win the election we have to draw in a lot of middle-of-the-road, low-information voters...there aren't enough conservatives to win national elections with just the conservative base.
I don't know about that; I think a president who quite frankly ruthlessly stomped corruption [i.e. IRS] would get some enormous approval. Sure the government bureaucratic machine would be terrified, and likely he'd make enemies in all three branches -- but I can't help but think that most people would be cheering him on.
Stamping out corruption where its found would be, I think, the fastest way to clean things up -- because usurped authority comes down to a form of corruption.
This has to be supplemented with “How Gingrich could (or could not) have won the popular vote,” “How Santorum could (or could not) have won the popular vote,” “How Bachmann could (or could not) have won the popular vote,” “How Perry could (or could not) have won the popular vote,” and “How Cain could (or could not) have won the popular vote,” to get a fuller picture. Romney was a poor candidate, but was there really a candidate out there who could have done better?
They changed the rules after the fact in the Michigan primary as well.
>> The Michigan Republican Party (MRP) Credentials Committee voted 4-2 last night to give Mitt Romney both of the state’s at-large delegates, State Policy Committee Chair Mike Cox told MIRS today.
Cox was one of two “no” votes on the committee which met via telephone, along with attorney Eric Doster The “yes” votes included GOP National Committeeman Saul Anuzis, a Romney supporter, and MRP Chair Bobby Schostak.
That would put the delegate split at 16 for Romney and 14 for Rick Santorum, after each candidate won 14 delegates apiece in those divided by Michigan’s 14 congressional districts.
As MIRS first reported on Wednesday, the MRP was delaying a final decision on the delegate split until after consulting with attorneys.
Cox said that according to the MRP rules, Santorum and Romney should each get one of Michigan’s two at-large delegates based on their take of the popular vote.
“I supported Mitt, but the vote was clearly wrong,” Cox said of the Credentials Committee. “It’s kind of like Third World voting. We published rules and then we voted to change the rules.”
He said he expects the Santorum campaign to file a complaint with the Republican National Committee (RNC).<<
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/3/1/163521/7207
I sure as hell don’t want to hear about purity when I supported 3 different candidates through the last cycle. (Bachmann, Cain, and finally Santorum) Moderates are the most lock step ideological purists there are.
(Willard) he is a decent person and loves the USA.
__________________________________________
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Willard is an abortion pusher to the extreme “If the parents wont give permission for an underage girl to get an abortion I’ll have a judgte override their parent authority”
Willard is the father of gay marriage, pushed gays in the military, as MASS Gov endorsed gay pride parade, ...
Willard is a TWO Time draft dodger who mocked our troops who served in the combat zone, and said his FIVE loser sons served America equal to the troops when they helped him in his political campaign...
Doya really want me to post that there laughin cat ???
Eh ???
Fergetaboutit with that pushing ol liberal Willard for 2016...
Romney's weasel words were when he lied about being not as radically liberal as he actually is, and he is not a 'decent" man who "loves the USA".
Romney and his family has always despised the USA and Christians and conservatives, and desired to defeat them, Mitt's decades in politics has been to seek revenge on the Reagan wing of the party, for how it rejected his parents.
With all of his shortcomings, I think Romney did better than any of the other candidates would have done. What was needed was a conservative who could actually win--that wasn't Bachmann or Perry or Santorum or Pawlenty or Cain or Gingrich. Santorum joined the lynch mob going after George Zimmerman (that won't have any impact on the outcome of the trial but it doesn't show good judgment).
Finny, that was an awesome response and spot on!
We can sit and bash Romney, cheer Palin, delude ourselves that Allen West can win the Presidency, etc.
By 2016 though we have to solve these problems.
1) We no longer have an electoral strategy. CO, VA, NM are likely gone for good. VA, FL and NC may be gone for now.
2) Remember how for decades the Dems would always claim they had the majority, but the poor didn’t get out vote, so the GOP would win? Well, with early voting laws, the Dems now have 2-4 weeks to drag all those people to the polls. They don’t have to try and do it all in one day.
3) The WWII generation is dead. All those hard working, family oriented white folks are who voted from 1980 through 2004 are now generally deceased. We’ve lost those voters.
4) Most youth under the age of 30 have no ties to the values of the WWII generation. They may not have even grown up in a two parent household. They support if not endorse the gay lifestyle and single parents. This block was too young to vote in 2004 but they showed up in 2012 and will be there in 2016. Jim Demint doesn’t appeal to them.
So there you have it. Solve the problems above and we get the White House back. Otherwise we can only hope to hang onto the House for another ten years.
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.