Posted on 11/08/2012 7:32:38 AM PST by TonyInOhio
One of the more intriguing narratives for election 2012 was proposed by political scientist Brendan Nyhan fairly early on: that it was "Bizarro 2004."
~ SNIP ~
The Election Day returns actually continued the similarities. George W. Bush won by 2.4 percent of the popular vote, which is probably about what Obama’s victory margin will be once all the ballots are counted.
~ SNIP ~
But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.
~ SNIP ~
In other words, if our underlying assumption -- that there are 7 million votes outstanding -- is correct, then the African-American vote only increased by about 300,000 votes, or 0.2 percent, from 2008 to 2012. The Latino vote increased by a healthier 1.7 million votes, while the “other” category increased by about 470,000 votes.
This is nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of the effect on the electorate, it is dwarfed by the decline in the number of whites. Again, if our assumption about the total number of votes cast is correct, almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. This isn’t readily explainable by demographic shifts either; although whites are declining as a share of the voting-age population, their raw numbers are not.). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home.
Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.realclearpolitics.com ...
the more I hear about these strange results the more I am convinced that something is not right.
WI, FL, VA, OH are all states which seem to have the most questions then there are the other races like Mia Love and a race down in NV.
Both up quite a lot and yet they lose.
A lot of Ron Paul stalwarts didn't vote (or voted for Gary Johnson), but I don't think they account for that many voters.
Look at it like a hidden “Perot” vote that cost Bush against Clinton. There’s also a lot of people out there that think the system is broken and don’t think anyone can fix it. They’ve given up.
That's probably closer. Think rural voters in areas in economic decline. They're conservative in many things, but all this talk about millionaire Romney and Bain capital really turned them off. They might have been Perot voters in the Nineties, or small "c" conservatives who weren't enthusiastic about Reagan in the Eighties because of farm forclosures.
A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.
I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.
You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.
I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?
A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.
I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.
You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.
I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?
It's fascinating, and it's not at all what you might think.
I am not assuming there was wide spread voter fraud. I am saying the voting numbers released and the MSM storyline don't make sense. Therefore, I have to conclude something is happening that is not explained. Widespread voter fraud is one possible hypothesis. There are precincts showing turnout at around 100% with over 99% of the total vote going for Obama. There are over 7 million “missing” white votes. There were long lines reported all day and waits of over an hour in many polling places but it is claimed that the total votes were less than in 2008.
I do not, therefore, conclude that there is no voter fraud. I conclude something is not true and the widespread voter fraud is a likely explanation. I also say I don't know what the answer is. I just know something isn't right.
bfl
Interesting how so much of the post-election analysis centers on race.
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.