How Romney could have won the popular vote (It all came down to turnout)

Daily Caller ^ | 06/01/2013

[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.

[Windflier]

There you are! I must be psychic or something. I was just wondering about you this morning.

Hope all’s as well as can be, and that your flourishing.

[Innovative]

” Please move out of the US. Useful idiots not wanted here.”

YOU are the one who enabled Obama to get elected and re-elected. Just who is the useful idiot?!

[Innovative]

So, I suppose you were happy with Bill Clinton and are even happier with Obama, and proud you helped them get elected, right?

[Innovative]

” because voting for Romney was voting to empower amorality and evil.”

Yes, I can see how, in contrast to “the evil Romney”, Obama is the paragon of virtue and goodness and you are obviously very please with yourself that you personally helped Obama get a second term, so he can completely destroy the country.

[SilverMine]

He was a nut case loser who was a disastrous one term governor who left office with 34% approval.

The Republicans gave obama four more years.

[SilverMine]

Add to that he never articulated that invaders should be sent back to their homelands and the US southern border should be secured.

Romney was at best a rino.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

You know; I've noticed that too -- and I'm only 30.
Last cycle I held my nose and voted for McCain, but I promised that I wouldn't "hold my nose" for another candidate. I am so glad I didn't; it's liberating not to be chained to the "vote against Y"/"X is better than Y" argument -- I don't want to vote against somebody, I want to vote for somebody — the difference is amazing, there's no rationalizing involved I simply voted for the guy I thought best (Gary Johnson; my state's former gov).

It also really helped that I saw Romney/Obama as a false dilemma; i.e.:

Or, as one guy put it in a list of 40 major common points:

[Windflier]

So, I suppose you were happy with Bill Clinton and are even happier with Obama, and proud you helped them get elected, right?

KMA, fool. You're on the wrong end of this debate, you RINO.

[ansel12]

No kidding, and they devoted at least 7 years to get Romney in position to lead yet another rino failure, but it worked in some ways.

I think it sent a strong message to the Boy Scouts for instance, Romney’s nomination was intended to signal the end of social conservatism and pro-life and the end of resistance to the homosexual agenda, within the GOP.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

There's no math because you are, from the outset, disregarding all other candidates. --

No I'm not, their numbers show up. Have you never watched election returns? What the hell do those votes have to do with them getting elected (nothing, they lost) or defeating the bad guy (it usually helps him)

Wow, so you are saying that you wholeheartedly approve of simply dropping people's votes - literally ensuring that the system is broken.

Wow, No I'm not saying that. I said they don't count, not that the aren't counted.

No matter whether the system is broken, or up and running perfectly as designed by even you, nobody needs to be "dropping people's votes"...

The itsy-bitsy candidates numbers mean nothing more than wasted votes. It's the two big columns that count.

Here's what you don't seem to understand...the guy with the biggest number of votes....wins.

That is reprehensible.

Yeah it is, how the hell did you come up with it and why are you accusing me of your fantasy scheme?

[Kenny Bunk]

There just wasn’t any fight in Romney.

The Mormon Milquetoast! No fight. No street smarts. No guts.

[OneWingedShark]

Wow, No I'm not saying that. I said they don't count, not that the aren't counted.

Ah... and the difference is what? Nothing.
There is no difference, functionally, in a system where votes are not counted and where legitimate votes "don't count".

By saying that they "don't count" you are saying that the opinions of those voting are irrelevant -- if the GOP had selected another candidate to push I would have likely voted for him. But let's flip this around a bit: If the GOP had selected Ron Paul as the candidate, would you have voted for him? Yes or no, please.

This is relevant in that your argument is basically "people should just vote GOP" -- I believe that Paul would have won over Obama, I mean it would take some work to find one as "electable"* as Romney. And let's face it, he would have been at least different than what the we've had for the past 12+ years. (Hell, his drive to end the Fed is worth getting excited over in and of itself.) -- And don't spout shit about foreign-policy making him 'unelectable' that's why** Congress approves cabinet appointments (to temper radical elements to something acceptable).

* (sarcasm-quotes).
** Doing a good job at it is another debate.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

There is no difference, functionally, in a system where votes are not counted and where legitimate votes "don't count".

Well what the hell do you want, for them to count as a thousand votes, as a million? Like affirmative action?

No, no, no. One man, one vote.

the opinions

Opinions...this was like life and death and you're frigging around with making a personal political statement? Just what I thought.

If the GOP had selected Ron Paul as the candidate, would you have voted for him? Yes or no, please.

Uh....gag....probably. But only if he promised to bring home the troops and nuke Mecca, Iran and Yeman.

I believe that Paul would have won over Obama

I should have seen that coming.

I mean it would take some work to find one as "electable"* as Romney.

I don't care about the "electability" quotient, he's the one who emerged from the primaries.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, not only do they need to find "someone". That someone has to be willing to suffer the degradation, humiliation and outright lies thrown at them by the progressive RATagandists and the DNC in order to not only defeat, but totally destroy them.

Look at what happened to the candidates that did enter the primary, each would be sequentially ripped to shreds...whoever was ahead.

Unless the communist cabal (education, press, government unions, communisty organizers) can be overcome. I'll be surprised if any decent, qualified candidate steps forward again.

[VRWC For Truth]

The last time Democrats voted for a Republican was Reagan. He never ran left. If the GOP runs lefties, Democrats vote for the Democrat.

Klintoon beat a feckless Bush I when GH caved on taxes.
When Klintoon was on the ropes with the blue dress, the GOP ran a feckless liberal Bob Dole
New tone Bush II barely beat a feckless Al Bortion and a feckless John Kerry.
Lil Barry barely beat a feckless Juan McDemocrat.
Lil Barry beat a feckless Mittens.

It’s the fecklessness stupid.
History is not on your side.

[OneWingedShark]

>> There is no difference, functionally, in a system where votes are not counted and where legitimate votes "don't count".
>
>Well what the hell do you want, for them to count as a thousand votes, as a million? Like affirmative action?
>No, no, no. One man, one vote.

I never said anything that could be construed other than "One man, one vote" — you, however, have flat out stated the equivalent of "one man, one [or maybe zero] votes".
(That is what "it doesn't count if they vote for a third party" must mean.)

>> the opinions
>
> Opinions...this was like life and death and you're frigging around with making a personal political statement? Just what I thought.

Let me quote the NM Constitution to you:

Art 1, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Or Oregon:

Art I, Section 8. Freedom of speech and press.
No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

Or Wyoming:

Article 1, Section 21. Right of petition and peaceable assembly.
The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble to consult for the common good, and to make known their opinions, shall never be denied or abridged.

And I'm sure there's more -- So yes, opinions do matter, elsewise why would the state constitutions mention them so intimately-connected with rights? - That is because a 'right' which is dependent upon adherence to some approved opinion is no right, but a license which can be revoked.

>> I mean it would take some work to find one as "electable"* as Romney.
>
> I don't care about the "electability" quotient, he's the one who emerged from the primaries.

And I found him utterly unacceptable; you have said continually that my refusal to support Romney was the support of Obama - I am saying that it is not.
It's funny that you say you don't care about electability quotient, and yet you dismiss my non-Romney vote on the basis that it was for an unelectable candidate.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, not only do they need to find "someone". That someone has to be willing to suffer the degradation, humiliation and outright lies thrown at them by the progressive RATagandists and the DNC in order to not only defeat, but totally destroy them.

What we need is someone who's willing to fight back - I believe the best way to do that is to be "obsessed" with justice (i.e. a vigorous rooting-out AND PUNISHMENT of corruption)... but why should I expect that from a Republican candidate given how the party-as-an-entity has reacted to Fast & Furious, or Benghazi, or the "Kinetic Military Action" of Libya?

[lodi90]

The last time Democrats voted for a Republican was Reagan. He never ran left. If the GOP runs lefties, Democrats vote for the Democrat.

---

Exactly. And all these plantation overseers want to refight the last war and talk about Romney. Ask them about Rubio & his amnesty and you get a deafening silence. You are right the beltway GOP is quickly moving left expecting conservatives without options to stay. No thanks. If they plan on destroying the middle class it won’t be with my support.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

Really???

Do you really believe, that Reagan, with his foundational conservative principles, his ability to communicate them in a cheerful, hopeful manner to everyone, his fearlessness in attacking the left, and the RINOs in his own party wouldn't have swept the floor with Obama and his failed socialistic policies?

Give me a break, your moderation, your RINOness is showing again.

All you have to support your contention is the failed attempt by a Progressive Liberal (Romney) pretending to be a Republican and refusing to fight back against Obama and his socialism and supporting both Abortion and the Gay Agenda AND Polling by deceptive, left-wing organizations who are known for trying to shape opinion vs. actually taking an objective pulse of the electorate at a given point in time.

There is no real evidence to support you in your contention, only the opinions of the GOP-e, Karl Rove, the Democrats, and pretend, left-wing polling organizations, all of which have one thing in common, the desire to tamp down the Tea-Party and all Social conservatives.

Why are you aligning yourself with these traitors?

[CountryClassSF]

So, more data showing conservatives stayed home in 2012 -— NO MORE RINOS!

[Finny]

So, you’re saying you voted for Obama.So, you’re saying you voted for Obama.

No, but you just said you're intellectually deceitful. :^)

[Finny]

You are blind.