Posted on 11/09/2016 5:44:47 PM PST by Meet the New Boss
It’s easy to glance at Tuesday’s popular vote — which, with 92 percent of all precincts reporting, shows Hillary Clinton with six million fewer votes than Barack Obama won in 2012 – and reach the conclusion that Clinton lost the White House because she failed to turn out the Democratic base. But the truth is much more complicated.
snip
Which brings us to an important question: Was Donald Trump just good enough to beat a bad Democratic opponent on Tuesday, or does he deserve far more credit? Could he, for instance, have competed with the vaunted Obama machine? The answer, somewhat shockingly, is yes. A review of vote totals in the past two elections reveals that Trump 2016 would have defeated Obama 2012 in the electoral college.
snip
The math might seem impossible. After all, Obama won nearly 66 million votes in 2012; Trump is currently at 59.5 million and should finish around 60 million, which will actually be one million fewer votes than Mitt Romney won. How, then, could Trump have topped Obama in the electoral college? The answer: Republican turnout lagged in certain parts of the country but shot through the roof in the nation’s most critical battleground states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Where Trump personally campaigned intensely (i.e., in these battleground states), he did phenomenally well. I suggest his local campaign events and the use of social media to get his message locally to these battleground voters were, in retrospective, very important to getting the win.
Nationally, he did weaker in places where he didn't personally spend a lot of time campaigning, because the national media reportage was so overwhelmingly and unfairly biased against him, refusing to report anything that the reporters thought might be favorable to him as well as anything unfavorable about Hillary.
That he only did so well where he personally broke through and made direct connections locally in battleground states suggests that with a fair and objective national media, this would have been a blowout nationally.
Yup. If we had a national media that wasn’t completely in the bag for the rats. But alas they are. And because of that, the GOP loses and its a long term structural loss. Worse, it highlights how the GOP isn’t seriously competing much of the time. A serious competitor would have made sure that antitrust laws were wielded and a competing nationalist network existed.
Pointless without an accounting of the different size of the 2012/2016 voter pools.
Trump did get a much better turnout than Romney- no thanks to NR LOL!
What was needed to beat Hussein in 2008 and especially 2012 was a Republican who didn’t pussyfoot around Hussein, a Republican who wasn’t afraid that if he said anything bad about Hussein he would be a racist. We had two candidates who did not run against Hussein. They just stood up and said “well here I am but Obama is pretty wonderful and I hope you vote for me.”
We will never know. Many who voted for Obama were suckered into it mostly due to his race. This was the first re-election of a black incumbent. We hadn’t yet gone through that novel experience. I was never fooled by it though.
We’ve also jumped from 2.4 million 3rd party votes in 2012 to around 6.5 million so far for 2016. Quite possible the GOP turnout was slightly higher than 2012, but some of them may have voted for Hillary, and some of them may have voted 3rd party (probably women in both cases).
.
Romney beat Obama in 2012, but the party wouldn’t fight the fraud.
I think they like it.
One thing I noticed in 2012 was that the vote totals the week or two after election day were much lower than they eventually ended up being. Everyone reported Romney underperformed McCain in the vote. But eventually, the numbers got raised, and Romney’s total surpassed McCain’s. I’m not sure what caused the numbers to go up. That’s why I’m not yet sure Hillary won the popular vote. I think there are final counts that don’t come in for weeks.
California takes weeks to finally come in and has such a huge vote. I guess in parts of Cali it’s becoming like holding an election in a third world country.
Hill and Trump only got 95.2% of the vote. Last two times it was 98.3 and 98.6 for the D and R.
That much less of a percentage means 3-5 million votes.
#nevertrump was a real thing as was #neverhillary.
Its because millions of republicans have gone independant. For good reason!
That could explain because I found an election day after article in 2012 that said Obama beat Romney by 1 million votes. Final tally was 5 million. If California is the source of the extra vote, Hillary might have won the popular vote much bigger than we see now.
Current CA totals are 8.8 million votes. Last two were 13.3m and 12.5m. So looks like a lot more vote is outstanding from CA. If it’s 4m more to come in, Hillary could pad out her popular margin by 1.3m more votes.
There were a lot of Ca. Residents that voted Trump WE would LOVE to have our state back rather than having to move!!! It has come to people who have lived here their entire lives fleeing the state because they feel like they are living in Mexico!!!
Turn out turn out.
The GOPe is a disgrace, sabotaging the morale.
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.