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.
There's no such thing as voting "against." You only get to vote for any item or candidate on any ballot, even when it comes to voting for nixing a proposition. There is nothing ever on any ballot that allows you to vote "against."
Wow. Very well said.
1. "Believes in the capitalist system," wrong. Very very wrong, and his own actions prove it, from claiming that global climate environmental regulation need not create economic burdens on businesses, which is wholesale blowing of sunshine up gullible patoots, to RomneyCare, which is at its very foundation intensely anti-capitalist.
2. "Would be supportive of the military." Wrong again, he is party to its sabotage. He believes in forcing Americans, young men, young women, in the military to accept open homosexuality within the ranks where they serve, and in punishing then if they object.
Romney is as much an enemy of freedom and morality as Obama. It's why he lost, and it's why I'm grateful he lost.
More proof of how bereft you are of intellectual honesty. The quality of the supporter speaks volumes about the candidate.
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.
So important it needs to be posted again.
Shark, it occurs to me that RLob’s screen name is entirely appropriate as to intelligence.
It hurts to know you voted for a socialist, doesn’t it?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing! Bulls eye. A straight and true shot.
Finally - an intelligent rundown of “the Romney issues”. You put it very well - I was expecting some of the usual, “he’s the spawn of the devil” responses. Thanks for the breakdown.
Nuclear Iran.
>> that RLob’s screen name is entirely appropriate as to intelligence.
>
> Nuclear Iran.
Irrelevant — I see nothing in Romney’s character which would indicate he’d be willing to War [unlimited, total war, or nuclear]*... and that’s not considering that the President cannot legitimately act until Congress declares war (or that other nation has entered a state of war w/ us).
* The only way to have prevented a nuke-capable Iran would be to “bomb them back to the stone-age”; and even then you do not control land w/o ground-forces.
bookmark
Please open your eyes to the truth, trebb, and stop with lying accusation that those of us who are informed enough about his record to know the extent of his liberalism, think he's "the spawn of the devil." Abortion and the homosexual agenda are both amoral at best, and Romney supports both -- maybe not "the spawn of the devil," but most certainly BAD for America.
Paulistinian = Nuclear Iran
I give up - you are absolutely right. Obama stands head and shoulders above Romney and we would be in much worse shape and far more government intrusion if he had beat Obama. Plus, Mormonism is probably about ten times worse than being a defacto Islamist. I stand corrected. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Do you really think it was "Romney lies" that did in Perry or Bachmann or Caine or Santorum or Gingrich? Didn't they have obvious negatives? If any of them had gotten the nomination the DNC would have hammered away at those negatives. I don't see any of them doing any better than Romney did, at least according to the polling data, and the polls did come closer to the actual result than people who scoffed at them.
Romney was a lousy candidate -- though it's hard to see that any of his rivals was any better. Those 47% comments did him in, as did the perception of him as a rich guy. Disaffected voters, people who disagreed with the Democrats on social issues but didn't like Republicans because they thought them the party of the rich, stayed away from Romney. Some of them had voted for other Republicans in the past, like Reagan or Bush, many of them just didn't vote Republican or didn't vote at all.
Maybe another candidate could have picked up a few more of those voters (and lost more in other groups), but I don't see that a substantial number of voters who really cared about abortion stayed home because of Romney's earlier opinions. My sense is that those who really cared about the issue held their nose and crossed their fingers and voted for Romney, unless they were already alienated for other reasons that were as important to them.
If you are from California, is it still the state that elected Ronald Reagan? Do you still find people with the same views and same quality or character as those of a generation ago? If you don't, is it so strange that the country as a whole may also have changed over the last 20 or 30 years? I guess you're a true believer, which is fine so far as principles go, but maybe not so good when it comes to empirical judgments.
It made my resolve stronger. I had never planned on spending time on line like this, but with what is happening to this country I have decided it is time to join, so I have joined the JBS and FR. And have my eye on more.
+1
I'm no Paulistinian, BUT
What President or unsuccessful candidate in the last 24 years would have used military force to stop Iranian nuclear capability (bombing doesn't count)?
Don't know, I wouldn't support sending troops. Why should we when we have excellent hardware (with excellent software) just waiting to be field tested.
Taking out one government complex, barracks, military installation, airfield at a time, would probably sent them a pretty clear message.
If that doesn't work...take out a rioting crowd of geehawdees.
The old "Big Stick" trick.
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.