Replies

In droves? Where's your proof?

My numbers come from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.

In 2012, the total voting age population (U.S. Citizens over the age of 18) was 215,081,000. The total number of registered voters was 153,157,000.

Obama got a total of 65,918,507 votes, which equals approximately 30.6% of total voting age population or 43% of all registered voters.

Romney got a total of 60,934,407 votes, which equals approximately 28.33% of total voting age population or 39.8% of all registered voters.

That leaves approximately 40% of the voting age population or 17% of the registered voters who stayed home.

Now, imagine if the Republicans had nominated a strong conservative candidate for President in 2010. You don't think a strong conservative candidate could have could have gotten some of those missing 40% of the voting population and 17% of the registered voters to the polls?

By way of comparison, Bush got re-elected in 2004 with 31.5% of the total voting age population or 43.7% of the registered voters. Bush was a moderate/liberal. The only reason he got re-elected was enough conservatives were scared enough of how close we had come to having President Algore on 9/11 that they came to the polls to vote against President Kerry. Certainly, Bush did not win re-election because of his "compassionate conservative" tax and spend domestic policies.

If Mittens Romney had only done as well as Bush (either as a percentage of the total or registered vote) he would have won.

Going back further, in 1984 the total voting age population was 169,963,000. The total number of registered voters was 116,106,000.

In 1984, Reagan, the last conservative Republican presidential candidate, was re-elected with a total of 54,455,472 votes, which equaled approximately 32% of total voting age population or 47% of all registered voters.

The difference between Reagan's 32%/47% in 1984 and Romney's 28%/40% in 2010 is conservatives staying home in droves.

Nice statistics there, Bubba. The actual number of votes for Mittens was down Yosemitestless than 2M from Bush, and 1+M more than McCaine—both differences less than 3% of those who voted R. The only statistically significant difference came from Obama increasing the gibsmedat vote.

And as far as Reagan’s wins, why don’t you just give up—massive wins are what happens when you run a Conservative rather than a RINO. Y’all ought to try it sometime.

Are you assuming that ALL the registered voters are JUST Republican, or Democrat ?
There ARE other Political Parties, i.e. the Conservative Party.

"You don't think a strong conservative candidate could have could have gotten some of those missing 40% of the voting population and 17% of the registered voters to the polls?"

A STRONG CONSERVATIVE, one who will actually put up a fight would bring out more voters, and get more people to register to vote.
But of that missing 17% of registered voters, at best, with many Political Parties (not just RINOs and 'RATs) I doubt the "stay-at-home-ers" (out of disgust) was even 5 % of the Registered Republicans.
With the father of the RINOs, Romney as our candidate, that percentage should have been A LOT HIGHER !

Our current strategies have resulted the our party slowly getting more and more like the 'RATs.
So I'm DONE with continuing the same LOUSY strategies and tactics.
I'm CLEANING HOUSE, and it's OPEN SEASON on "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS".
I'll take out (vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !