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.
Of course it came down to turnout.
He was an anti-gun big-government quasi-leftist.
Ergo he didn’t get the turnout.
You don’t remember Reagan well, but Mitt Romney does, Mitt left the party because of Reagan, Mitt’s father ran as the anti-war liberal, against Reagan for president.
Mitt didn’t vote for Reagan and presumably didn’t vote for HW Bush in 1988, since Mitt was supporting ONLY democrats, and FUND RAISING AS A DEMOCRAT AND VOTED DEMOCRAT IN THE 1992 PRIMARY.
Mitt returned to the GOP in October 1993 and ran as a dedicated advocate of the homosexual agenda and for abortion, he ran as a dedicated pro-choicer who came from a family of courageous pro-abortion promoters from before Roe v Wade, He ran on Romneys as PIONEERS OF PRO-ABORTION COURAGE.
The real discussion is how the wealthy Mitt Romney shaped the choices for two election cycles.
We can go back to 2005 and 2006 to see how primaries are shaped by a moneyed power and early fund raising signals among the elites, telling potential candidates that they best not join the fray this time, and it would pay to do that since we will see it this time as well with the rino branch, although, I don’t know how we fight it.
But, you’re happy with your President Obama. That’s all that matters.
Compromising with Socialists makes you a Socialist. Please move out of the US. Useful idiots not wanted here. Either you are with us or against us. You choose poorly. 50 years of you compromising has improved nothing. Over my dead body will I ever be a sellout such as yourself.
Do you really think the Democrats didn't have enough stuff (real or imagined or concocted) to pummel them with?
Stop the false argument. You are the one who compromised and let Soetoro win. Two can play your silly argument. Compromise with Socialists and you are a Socialist. You have no argument.
The first thing the GOP should have learned is to not run a candidate who is against the party’s pro-life platform and who has spent 20 years promoting homosexualizing the military and Boy Scout leadership, who introduced “gay marriage” to America and gave us Obamacare, and who thinks that gun owners are psycho killers who want guns for the “sole purpose of hunting down and killing people”.
In a practical sense, something that even you might understand and accept about practical politics inspite of your committed liberalism Do not choose a candidate who in 20 years of running for office, has a single victory to his name, and who SERVED A SINGLE TERM AS GOVERNOR, WHICH WAS A FAILURE, IN WHICH HE COULDN’T RUN FOR REELECTION, AND WAS FORCED OUT WITH 34% APPROVAL and 54% DISAPPROVAL AND WHO LOST THAT SEAT TO THE DEMOCRATS.
When the left wing of the party is so dedicated to such a political nobody, such a proven loser, then it shows that they have moved beyond mere politics, they have joined the left in promoting an anti-conservative agenda against America.
LOL, please don’t waste freerepublic’s time with childishness.
Are you willing to make the assertion that someone staying home is "a vote for Obama"? Or someone voting third-party?
If so, why?
Yes.
Because if you are a legitimate voter, and didn't put a mark in the opponents column which cancels out a RAT vote, you let that RAT vote stand. Enough of those, and the RAT wins.
Next question.
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.
Even accepting your facts at face value, there is no evidence the beltway GOP is doing anything about the changing electorate. They ran a tip toe loser strategy, lost and nobody got fired for it. Then those same idiots put together a boondoggle autopsy report, punted on obamacare with another CR surrender, etc., etc.. Now the latest is the willfully dishonest campaign to shove amnesty down our throats and violate our constitutional rights. That is a bridge too far in my book.
As long as the current loser leadership is in charge, the GOP is going continue to lose. The first order of business should be to remove them. No removal, no grassroots support. Let them choose. I have made my decision. I will no longer be a GOP plantation voter. They will have to earn my vote.
Boy that's rich. I ditn't reelise I wuz so less edumacated than ery one else wuz. Being self taught in four foreign languages and all.
And here all along, I thought I stayed home because Myth Romney was a pro-abort, pro-socialist medicine, gun-grabbing, pro-homo "marriage" supporting northeastern liberal with the spine of a cooked noodle that thought arming democracy loving rebels Al-Qa'ida was a grand idea.
I dun reckon I haft to get me as smart as eryone else iz to see he wuz such a severe consrvative worth votin for.....becuz Ize just to dum to see that he wuldnt efen mention the sitt-cheeashun with the ambasseedor gettin raped and kilt with for other 'Mericans was actually a good thing.
The poster voted for Socialist lite, which in the poster’s mind makes him superior. Now what part of Socialism does he support?
Are you supporting Rubio and his amnesty bill? Put your cards on the table. If Romney was so great I suppose amnesty is also?
I like to ask if Hillary had switched to the Stupid Party and ran against 0bama would they vote for her since her stances on faggot "marriage", guns, abortion, and healthcare are near identical to Romney's. If so, why so and if not why not?
I've yet to receive a response other than name calling.
Ah, you're going to make this easy for me then -- Your assertion boils down to "no vote for anyone but my guy is valid" for the simple reason that you repudiate the free choice for anyone else.
Illustrated:
A, B, & C are running for a position; the incumbent is A, your candidate is B, and C is another contender. You are saying that every vote for C is a vote for A, therefore if everyone voted for C it is the same as voting for and electing A, according to your statement -- therefore no vote other than that for your own candidate is valid.
Next question.
I thought that the "if you don't agree with us, your opinion doesn't count" attitude was the hallmark of the progressive mode of thought — what makes your attitude any different?
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.