Posted on 01/02/2015 7:03:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Useful stats, not sure if the drop to 129 million in 2012 from 131 million is that significant of a drop.
If you have a job you are generally not too wasted to go vote at the end of a hard days work. With more people out of work and given up on finding work - well why bother?
Voter turnout boomed under Bush, not under McCain or Romney. There, fixed it!
R Limbaugh and others keep saying that Romney lost 4 million (evangelical) votes.
I don’t see a statistic that supports that.
The nearest I could find was that McCain lost about 2.1 million over GW Bush.
2000: GW Bush 50.4 million [Gore 50.99 million]
2004: GW Bush 62.0 million
2008: J McCain 59.9 million
2012: M Romney 60.9 million
You fixed nothing
Yeah, but McCain and Romney weren’t presidents
Can I be the first to say it?
Blame Bush!!!
No, they ran for President. I fixed it. McCain and Romney disgusted the conservative base which is one of the reasons Obama won.
Go back and check posts in this forum.
A LOT of conservatives refused to vote for McCain or Romney.
You ain’t seen decline until Jeb gets the GOP nomination.
And .. an interesting stat from the 2004 election was over 4 MILLION MORE VOTERS turned out for Bush’s 2nd election.
That was the BASE .. who suddenly realized that if they didn’t vote, we were going to have John Kerry as President.
And .. again in 2010 and again in 2014, the base came to the rescue. Too bad the GOPe still think they’re smarter than we are.
If they keep acting this way, Obama's base who is loved and adored by everyone will win everything from now on.
Initial voting results in 2012 indicated a decrease in votes, but later those numbers were revised up. I’m not sure what extra votes were added later, maybe overseas military ballots, maybe other absentee ballots & such. Rush might be still quoting the initial results. His overall point that the candidate has to get out the base is still correct.
From my own anecdotal experience, I believe many potential Romney voters in key states stayed home, but I don’t know the exact numbers. I always expected some expert to do a full analysis and announce the reasons but the narrative quickly switched to “we have to reach out to Hispanic voters.”
Also, analysis showed that in 2012, Romney won the so-called “independent” vote. Those precious “moderates” and independents that the are considered by the consultants to be the key to winning the election — Romney won them but still lost the election.
They, the R’s, actually think that they can win national elections without their base. So they go after independents and hispanics trying to make up the difference. Why? They really must be the stupid party.
That’s the way I look at it, how did it effect the swing-states such as Ohio and other states like that.
Boomed in 2006 when we were taken to the cleaners big time. Not impressed.
That's because the consultants didn't realize the obvious: you can't take the "base" for granted.
Romney may have won the independents and the moderates, but without reliable support from people that normally vote Republican, it's not enough to make up that deficit.
The article doesn't just discuss turnout in midterm years and incumbent reelection performance. Weighing the appeal (or lack thereof) of the nominated 2008 and 2012 GOP candidates is not only warranted, the article is flawed by avoiding it.
I agree with that sentiment. What happened to Michael Barone? Has he gotten lazy?
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.