Posted on 02/26/2013 4:03:57 AM PST by IbJensen
Real Republicans didn’t want Romney as a candidate. We could see as early as more than 5 years ago that he didn’t want to be President, and that he couldn’t win.
Then why did the GOP support him? It just does not make any sense. Why did I waste my vote and my contribution on someone who did not want to be president? What was gained by this? The GOP is in disarray ... without direction. I am a Conservative, a Catholic and I vote my conscience.
I was not tricked.
I really can't comment on national popular vote totals unless you can guarantee me that they were real and reasonably accurate. I have a hunch that due to various types of fraud, including fraud in the counting of votes by electronic devices, Romney's reported national popular vote may have really been higher than officially reported. One can hack into a vote counting device to cause an undercount for the candidate whom you want to lose, just as easy as you can cause an overcount for the candidate whom you want to win. Also possibly contributing to a falsely low reported vote total are instances when absentee ballots for Republican candidates are arbitrarily discarded by compromised election board workers or instances when local election boards failed to get ballots out to absentee voters in a timely fashion. There were reports of such instances of the latter type which effectively disenfanchised military personnel abroad.
IIRC, the total popular vote reported for all presidential candidates was less in 2012 than in 2008, without any apparent logical reason for such a dropoff.
Romney's real national popular vote may have been been higher than officially reported.
Romney's real national popular vote may have been higher than officially reported.
That's no excuse for Republicans and Democrats mounting campaigns to register new voters ~ AMONG THE YOUNG. That didn't happen because the Democrats fear the young hate them for having left them unemployed for the last 6 years (since the 2006 takeover of the House) and the Republicans think the young are simply lazy because 20 million people can't get jobs.
I think you’re on to something.
Thanks for the ping!
Stevens replied, Its not a yes or a no question. In the tank, I would say no. So, yes or no question, I would say no.
Hmm is this guy a dimwit or what? I mean that's NOT REALLY A YES OR NO QUESTION but I'm gonna say YES.
What does this mean?
I see lots of Catholics on FR, and they vary all over the place.
I see lots of Conservatives, too; and they, likewise; have differing points of view.
I'm curious as to what your conscience tells you.
It's apparent to ME!
People will NOT waste much of their time engaging in an endevour that they think will not benefit themselves in some way.
I can see some people thinking that, but Obama, by last year's election, was such a polarizing figure in comparison to 2008 that there seemed intuitively more motivation among the general public to vote against him and benefit by getting him out of office. I believe that the TV ratings for the presidential debates in 2012 surpassed that of 2008, the number of eligible voters increased with the general population increase, the size of the crowds drawn by the Romney campaign in comparison to McCain in '08 (albeit Romney wasn't the ideal GOP candidate in the opinion of many) were larger, and there were historically long lines of voters at polling places reported around the country. These were indicators of a larger total turnout, with Romney the likely beneficiary. Turned out that the reported vote counts weren't consistent with these observations.
So the question is why. One of the possible explanations is massive fraud and cheating in the electoral process, on an unprecedented scale, including hacking into electronic voting equipment so as to alter objective vote counts (which is technically doable). This could have both increased the reported Obama popular vote and decreased the reported Romney popular vote, and could have been decisive in several swing states.
The reason is very simple ~ REDISTRICTING.
It always takes at least one election after redistricting to figure out which precincts have to be beefed up, or consolidated, or moved!
When that first election is a Presidential election people notice. When it's just a mid-term election, there's such a steep drop-off in interest, and voting, no one in particular cares ~ other than the folks responsible for setting up polling stations ~ they fix problems before the next election.
I must be getting old to know that piece off wisdom and to have so many politicians and newsies running off at the mouth imagining that a line of voters means anything at all.
It doesn't!.
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.