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.
The answer can only be: All of It.
Why? Because socialism is like sin, like yeast, it contaminates the whole batch of bread.
But how do you support your contention with empirical evidence? Where was that great bloc of conservative voters who didn't vote for Romney but who would vote for Bachmann or Perry or Cain or Gingrich or Santorum?
Would they really outweigh people who couldn't take Newt's divorces and abrasiveness, or Perry's poor debate performance, or Cain's sexual scandals, or Santorum's gaffes?
I can understand disaffected voters in places being put off by Romney's rich guy image, but they're balanced out by voters who would run from Gingrich or Santorum or Bachmann.
I don't see any of the actual existing candidates for the nomination (as opposed to some ideal candidate that doesn't exist in reality) doing any better against Obama than Romney did.
I wish one of the others had been nominated, because then it would disprove theories like yours which people cling to without much evidence.
It's not Ronald Reagan's America out there anymore, though I wish it was. There isn't some vast reserve of conservative Democrats out there waiting to flock to a conservative Republican. And a lot of that sold Republican support of previous years has drifted away.
If Romney was so great I suppose amnesty is also?
__________________________________________
Yeppers Willard was for AMNESTY all along...since before 2007..
he knowingly hired illegal aliens when he was gov of MASS..
Mr Sanctuary City wouldnt let the LEOs arrest illegal aliens.....
He also mocked the “birthers”
Willard is an open borders kinda guy...
No thanks...
No, not at all, it's more math based.
Ah, you're going to make this easy for me then
No, actually, you made it easy for me. Here in liberal/welfare Maine, it worked in our favor. Our Republican governor won with 38% of the vote against a weak RAT and a whining "independent".
If the "independent" RAT hadn't pulled votes from the weak RAT, the weak RAT would have won. Or if the weak RAT had dropped out, the "independent" RAT would have won.
Applied to the last national election, if conservative knotheads hadn't been all over the map, or even worse, not on the map at all...
We could be beating up on Romney!
No, nor do I believe he is eligible to run for President.
Applied to the last national election, if conservative knotheads hadn’t been all over the map, or even worse, not on the map at all...
We could be beating up on Romney!
**************
You make a good point. But I prefer to think the “knotheads” were the two candidates at the top of the Democratic and Republican tickets. JMO.
No. I didn't put Willard on the ballot, nor did I support him at caucus. But he was the only opponent in the election. I kinda liked Rick Perry, I really liked Herman Cain.
Compromise with Socialists and you are a Socialist. You have no argument.
You seem to think we were voting for king (as did Obama) You would also have needed a turnover in the Senate, some more TEApublicans to push around a RINO president.
Had everyone showed up to vote, some of that would have happened. Even with Obama, if they were steadfast, that would have been less horrible.
Now just a bleepin' second lady!
When the election finally rolled around, I don't care who the opposition candidate was, I'm voting for him. Practically any other American in that office would be better than what we got.
But NOOOOOOOOOO!
If the GOP-e, and pretend conservatives like yourself, had actually spoken out loud and clear that we would not have a pretend Republican, and a pretend conservative again, like McCain or Romney, we wouldn't be in the place.
I have participated heavily in political activity, not that it makes much difference in Maine, I watched every second of every debate, sometimes twice and was frequently disappointed or disgusted by the positions thrown out there.
So all these people were pretend conservatives too?
Newt was good, but c'mon....baggage...he should have been running someone's campaign, feeding data to all the contenders, not a candidate.
Michelle Bachmann was....a tax attorney and had 95 foster children....c'mon....she's way better than that.
Rick Perry, they ripped him in half early...could have used Newt's help.
Herman Cain...they killed him, still don't know what that was all about.
Rick Santorum, OK BUT....not quite ready for prime time.
Ron Paul....please.
Huntsman....please.
So what the hell was supposed to happen?
Oh, and by the way folks....
He probably did win the “popular vote”.
You compromised with Socialists. Now which part of Socialism do you support? Like I say, two can play your childish rhetorical baloney.
I never compromised with a Socialist in my life, unless it was where to buy Lobster.
No; you are wrong -- you explicitly stated that a vote for some other candidate was a vote for Obama [because it wasn't for Romney] -- this means that you think that all votes not for Romney or Obama simply don't count. IOW, you are asserting that those votes simply don't matter. If you say that the reason they don't matter is because that other-candidate couldn't win, then to be consistent your own vote didn't matter because Romney lost, and the past being unchangeable, couldn't have won.
There's no math involved in what you are saying, you are merely using math as a rationalization to assert that other people's votes don't count.
Exactly, other than wasting their time voting and the registrar's time counting them.
IOW, you are asserting that those votes simply don't matter.
In the same words; yes again.
If you say that the reason they don't matter is because that other-candidate couldn't win, then to be consistent your own vote didn't matter because Romney lost, and the past being unchangeable, couldn't have won.
No, it could have gone the other way if Obama lost because RATs stayed home in droves and the RATmafia decided not to manufacture millions of votes.
There's no math involved in what you are saying, you are merely using math as a rationalization to assert that other people's votes don't count.
They don't, other than letting the wrong guy win (See: Clinton/Ross Perot)
And what the hell are you talking about? If there's no math involved, what are those funny little number thingies after a candidate's name declaring how many votes he got?
There's no math because you are, from the outset, disregarding all other candidates. -- What you are saying either (a) doesn't match reality [because a man's vote does count], or (b) that the system is broken [because some man's vote literally doesn't matter]. Which is it?
>> this means that you think that all votes not for Romney or Obama simply don't count.
>
> Exactly, other than wasting their time voting and the registrar's time counting them.
Wow, so you are saying that you wholeheartedly approve of simply dropping people's votes - literally ensuring that the system is broken.
That is reprehensible.
Elect Elect
Obama Romney
| |
| |
Rev'ltnry. Fabian
Socalist Socalist
| |
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
|
|
IMPLEMENTS
SOCALISM Because Romney is a socialist (and a statist), just as Obama is, a vote for Romney is a vote for socialism. In fact, I believe it would have been much worse had Romney won.
Why? Because the GOP would have read that as a signal to go balls-to-the-wall Socialist; if "the opposition party" has given so little struggle against their 'opposition' how much would they give when "their man" was inside? -- Romney and the rest may have eased some of the more overt government overreaches (he's a Fabian, after all) but they would certainly fortify and set precedent for what's going on now. (As it is they're forced to put up at least some token resistance to keep the Kabuki-theater going.)
The Gelding Old Party moves further left every 4 years, and they get less votes each time. Somehow it’s always the Conservative’s fault they lose. It’s akin to the ‘Rats blaming Bush for all their problems.
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.