Posted on 11/08/2012 5:39:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Conservatives need to take a collective breath and look closer at the numbers before they buy into the idea that GOP nominee Mitt Romney's defeat was due to some kind of national demographic shift that now makes Democrat presidential candidates' armor impenetrable. Before you give in to the hysteria, here are a few things to keep in mind.
First, Barack Obama's re-election showing was actually pretty unimpressive for a guy whose philosophies voters have supposedly adopted. As of this writing on Wednesday, Obama's vote total stood at an unimpressive 60,119,958. That's about what John Kerry got in 2004 (59,028,444). President George W. Bush actually did far better than Obama in his 2004 reelection quest, posting a vote total that was about 2 million higher (62,040,610) than what Obama got on Tuesday. That's hardly a remarkable finish in a country with a population that has increased. In fact, it's a decline of 9 million votes from Obama's 2008 total.
Had Romney (57,425,441) done as well as McCain did in 2008 (59,934,814), he and Obama would have run neck and neck, virtually matching each other's vote totals. That's hardly the stuff of demographic ruin.
The question Republicans and conservatives need to ask is not why voters showed up for Obama, whose turnout wasn't exactly extraordinary, but why millions of their own voters, people who had pulled the lever for Bush and McCain, didn't do the same for Romney or simply stayed home.
Why did Romney get a full 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did? Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney? Who were they and where did they go? That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.
Is it possible that Republicans and conservative leaning independents just weren't that wild about the guy?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Many FReepers have been telling me that such conclusions are PRE-MATURE as Voting counts have not been totally concluded yet (For instance, California is still tallying their votes and only 70% have been counted ).
Look at the White Voter article I just posted.
The billion in negative ads turned off voters. They just didn’t show up.
I wonder how many republicans stayed home when Mitt and Obama (in the debates) argued who could ban more "assault weapons" the fastest?
Etc.
Why did Romney get a full 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did? Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney? Who were they and where did they go? That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.
So you really think Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum or Cain would have done better? Perry would have mirrored Romney numbers. McCain did better because A) Overall voter turnout was better and B) people liked him more - hes a war hero and C) Romney flipped flopped a lot. The bottom line is that we did not turn out - we lost
Unless the Republicans get busy and push voter registration for Republican inclined nonvoters this loss of Republican voters will continue because men, unlike corporate trusts, die!.
Part of the problem is the belief by Romney and his chief supporters in the GOP-e that there's a political middle made up of independent, undecided, moderate whatevers ~ who vote, presumably.
As I've been preaching for years, there's no such middle. Does not exist. Never did exist. This is not the 1793 French General Assembly!
The key to winning the presidency is simple ~ find Republicans, get them registered, make sure they vote for the party candidates. Then, have the candidate exhort them to get out there and get people to vote for the party candidates, and get people to the polls, or whatever other voting method we are using.
If the candidate is off somewhere speaking inoffensive platitudes and pie in the sky to the non existent undecided middle, he will lose the attention of the Republican voters.
I'm still waiting for Romney to initiate his campaign BTW. Dude even came to my neighborhood, but it was a closed, by invitation only, meeting with American Legion dignitaries.
Highly disturbing visit BTW. All the traffic disruption with none of the excitement that's supposed to come with a political gathering.
When you don’t respond to lies IMMEDIATELY AND FORCEFULLY with your own ads, you are a bad candidate. Mitt Romney is a filthy rich millionare who had the money to blow away Obama with ads of his own. He chose to turn into Mr. Niceguy exactly the same way McShame did and lost the election. He let the communist bastard democrats define him and cowered down like a dog. He had three debates to look Obamagabe square in the face and ask him did he believe all the lies and bs that was coming from the democrats. He never mentioned the negative ads. Till the day comes that the GOP nominates a man with some balls that will not take crap off lying ass democrats, they will never win another election. Moderates hell. Nominate a conservative with balls.
Mitt Romney wasn't perfect, but he was the right man to get the economy back on track.
If you stayed home...you deserve to be destitute...just as the rest of us will be once Obama is finished with us.
Your worse then the Democrats!!!!!
So you really think Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum or Cain would have done better? Perry would have mirrored Romney numbers. McCain did better because A) Overall voter turnout was better and B) people liked him more - hes a war hero and C) Romney flipped flopped a lot. The bottom line is that we did not turn out - we lost
RE: Look at the White Voter article I just posted.
Can you post the link to it? Thanks.
A long vanity thread I ran yesterday
Single women voting for Obama as a replacement for hubby/babydaddy.
For the democrats, men have been replaced by the state as the provider for women. Look at the creepy Julia ad that BO ran. We may think it’s creepy, but for many single women, it’s the truth.
40% of kids born right now are to single women, over 70% if they’re black.
We have created a Frankenstein like monster with several generations of women who depend upon the state to support them. And they’re going to keep voting for their meal ticket
The demo’s didn’t change, but the managed fraud was well planned and executed.
That seems to turn off the evangelicals quite a bbit..
RE: , but the managed fraud was well planned and executed.
I’ll grant you that some fraud existed. But ENOUGH to give Obama a 2 million vote victory in the popular vote? I highly doubt it.
RE: That seems to turn off the evangelicals quite a bbit..
According to Post #60 of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2956841/posts?q=1&;page=64#64
Evangelicals voted 79% for Mormon Romney.
Catholics gave him 48%.
If any, it was CATHOLICS who refused to vote for Romney.
The above numbers, if correct, tell me that MOST CATHOLICS (52%) either: Voted Obama, or stayed home.
Which is to say, most Catholic don’t care that their church and institutions are under attack and would rather:
A) Allow Obama’s minions to attack their church and institutions with impunity or;
B) Actively support Obama’s minions’ attacks on their church
and institutions with impunity.
In what way are they still Catholics other than the fact that they were baptized as infants?
Nailed it, and said it better than I could have.
Good article. Understanding the numers are estimates,
Obama saw a 9.35 million vote loss from 2008( 13.4%). Romney saw a 2.5 million vote loss from mccain 2008( 4.2%).
Overall there was an 11.55million vote loss.
Someone didn’t vote in the R columns. Was it because Romney is a Mormon? Were Tea Partiers involved? Did Evangelical Christians apathetic?
The MSM needz to get rid of people like Beckel, Williams(both Brian & Juan), Matthews, maddow, etc... None have accomplished anything except withholding outright laughter when they try to sell their BS.
Do the vote totals match the number of people that voted? It is easy to figure out but I doubt we will ever learn that information. We also need that data to determine if any specific areas were undervoted this election.
Everyone has an opinion. No message connection, Christie turned the tide, the storm caused many less voters, younger people would not vote for R.
We will find the Tea Party voted in large numbers. The storm & Christie did not make any difference. I am in NJ. If anything the D’s lost votes by not voting. Christian coalition did not turn out for their own cause. Shame on them. They wishy-washy Liberatarians didn’t vote( includes other Indies). They claim it is a conscious thing but they really want the Dems to win to keep themselves relevant.
The message(s) got out on both sides. The results are all due to turnout or the lack thereof. We knew many Dems were going to stay home and over 9 million did. Why 2.5 million people failed to show up for Romney is the key question. We all have to live with it. He had to be more popular than Mccain. Those people deserve what they get.
I agree. Romney had a ton of ammunition - if he had only chosen to use it. His campaign was the opportunity to inform the public of those things about which the MSM was covering Obama. He should have been trumpeting Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obama’s questionable cadre of people that he’s surrounded himself and a number of other things. People don’t hear about that stuff. Even my Republican co-workers - I work in a Republican office - don’t know about these, or very little. Romney would have made a good president, but he blew it.
I agree. Romney had a ton of ammunition - if he had only chosen to use it. His campaign was the opportunity to inform the public of those things about which the MSM was covering Obama. He should have been trumpeting Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obama’s questionable cadre of people that he’s surrounded himself and a number of other things. People don’t hear about that stuff. Even my Republican co-workers - I work in a Republican office - don’t know about these, or very little. Romney would have made a good president, but he blew it.
Your post is right on.
As much as I hate Bob Beckel, he made a damn good point last night that running against someone or something does not gen up votes like running for someone or something.
I remembered hearing this on many previous elections.
The Saudi and soros illegal $ fed nobama’s campaign enabling the non-stop negative sliming of Romney.
Romney ran promoting “small business is the answer” which apparently the voters did not relate to as much as Santa Hussein.
RE: Someone didn’t vote in the R columns. Was it because Romney is a Mormon? Were Tea Partiers involved? Did Evangelical Christians apathetic?
___________________________
Can’t blame it on Evangelicals. Billy Graham went out of his way to buy ads in Battleground States AND the Wall Street Journal ( Nationally ) to encourage Christians to vote for traditional family and sanctity of life.
Maine, Maryland and Minnesota IGNORED his advise.
And, According to Post #60 of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2956841/posts?q=1&;page=64#64
Evangelicals voted 79% for Mormon Romney.
Catholics gave him 48%.
If any, it was CATHOLICS who refused to vote for Romney.
The above numbers, if correct, tell me that MOST CATHOLICS (52%) either: Voted Obama, or stayed home.
Which is to say, most Catholic don’t care that their church and institutions are under attack and would rather:
A) Allow Obama’s minions to attack their church and institutions with impunity or;
B) Actively support Obama’s minions’ attacks on their church
and institutions with impunity.
In what way are they still Catholics other than the fact that they were baptized as infants?
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.