Are Conservatives Abandoning Romney? [Say What?!? 7-10% of Tea Party Evangelicals support Obama??]

The Right Sphere ^ | September 16, 2012 | Tom Dougherty

[Alex Murphy]

There have been 16 public polls conducted in swing states within the last week and there is an alarming statistic, consistent in all the polls regardless of the pollster party bias, that should have the Romney camp more than a little worried and possibly perplexed.

The numbers are clear that self-described conservatives are not supporting Governor Romney in sufficient numbers to win the election. Additionally there is anecdotal evidence that Evangelicals and Tea Party supporters are not embracing the Romney-Ryan ticket at levels that would be expected.

Looking at the crosstabs of the polls conducted in Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia within the last ten days, and averaging the support for Obama and Romney by ideology, the chart below speaks thousands of words.

Obama has a 7% greater support level among liberals than Romney has among conservatives, and a 6.8% favorable delta among likely voters who are “bolting from the base”. Without any demographic adjustment, using the raw data from the polls in those five states, Obama has an average lead of 2.5%.

If conservatives were supporting Governor Romney at the same level liberals are supporting President Obama, without any change to the level of support from self-described moderates, Romney could have a 4% plus lead in five states that have a total of 73 electoral votes

With my current electoral map showing Obama with 237 votes and Romney with 222, 73 votes is the ballgame, and by a comfortable margin.

In addition to the ideology breakdowns, the crosstabs show Tea Party supporters favor Romney over Obama, 85.0% to 10.6%, and Evangelical Christians favor Romney over Obama, 63.0% to 28.2%. Now I can immediately write-off a large part of the evangelical numbers because three of the polls conducted by Marist Polling state that 33% of evangelicals support Obama and that skews the numbers badly.

What I can’t write off is there are 7% to 10% of the electorate who describe themselves as either Tea Partiers or Evangelical Christians that are supporting Barack Obama in these five critical states. This is the empirical part of questioning the lack of support from ultra-conservatives within the Republican Party.

Anecdotally speaking there is also evidence that a faction of the party, large enough to insure a Romney-Ryan victory, is not fully behind the GOP ticket. In the last week I have received a minimum of a dozen emails from Tea Party organizations and other ultra-conservative groups demanding the ouster of Barack Obama in November but failing to even mention the names, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.

A few of these organizations may have charters as 527’s or another quasi-political group that prevents them from expressing specific support for a given candidate but I know the vast majority are not. So the question that begs to be asked of these groups is if you want Obama gone, why are you not advocating for a Romney-Ryan victory in November?

We are looking at a presidential race today that literally is a statistical tie, and yes I know that phrase is overworked but it is the truth, with President Obama having the upper hand. Clearly there is somewhere between 7% and 15% of conservatives who, while seemingly committed to seeing Obama as a one-term president, are not supporting the only option to victory in November that achieves their stated goal.

So my answer to the question asked is yes, conservatives are abandoning Romney, and that is an answer many Republicans must find unsettling.

[Jim from C-Town]

‘The message “We don't need conservatives” was heard loud and clear.’

That really isn't the case. the ‘conservative’ vote was split between Gingrich and Santorum. Also a fair amount of Conservatives decided that Romney was the best choice to take the election and deny O’Bumbler a second four years of destruction.

The votes for many, such as yourself, are virtually meaningless. You live in TX. Romney will take TX with or without your vote, it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

You have the luxury of voting your conscience and being high and mighty.

Those of us in a state like OH, VA, WI, PA, FL, NC & IA don't have that luxury, our votes are serious and they count. In NC O’Bumbler took the state by a couple thousand votes. He could do the same in any one of the swing states.

Do what you like in CA, TX, IL, RI, NY or the host of other uncontested states.

Please, Do not deter those of us from doing the right thing and voting the jackass O’Bumbler out. A little less tub thumping would be appreciated by those of us who have to do the actual lifting.

[DannyTN]

"O is eminently impeachable if not indictable as a fraud and enemy of the state. R will merely continue the same policies we are all against and be untouchable. There are no good choices."

That's true but only if we win the senate. And if Obama wins the election, they won't impeach O unless he gets a lot worse.

But they can tie Obama's hands in a lot of ways.

[ViLaLuz]

“No one is abandoning Romney. The GOPe tried to force Romney down their throats, and they aren’t having it.

Nor, as far as I have seen, have ANY Freepers said that they would vote for Obama. They have simply said that they cannot in good conscience vote for either one of them, since they are both gay marriage supporters, baby killers, and big government socialists. And, I would add, entitled narcissists of the first order.

Is this the fault of Evangelicals with principles? Or is it the fault of the corrupt GOP party handlers, who keep on trying to force lousy candidates on the conservative base?”

Well said Cicero.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Welcome to Free Republic.

Huh? They guy's been a member for 12 years.

[JRandomFreeper]

My vote is meaningless? What? I was told here on FR that I was singlehandledly responsible for the 4 horsemen.

I'd vote the same anywhere else. Voting my concience isn't being high and mighty. It's being humble and subservient to the will of God.

My vote was meaningless way before the convention because Florida cheated and held their primary early, and because of stuff that happened in other early states, like rules changed after the vote...

Own it, if you are voting for a liberal. Don't be shy.

/johnny

[Jane Long]

Romney wins, we've got 8 more years before we have a chance to put a conservative in office. If Obama wins, we can do it in 4.

Balderdash! If 0 wins, there won't be another chance for conservatives, at all. Like Mark Steyn says, if 0 is re-elected, America in 2016 will look nothing like America even today. But, go ahead and promote 0's re-election and the demise of this great nation.

[noinfringers2]

I have climbed over the fence for Romney but I’m hoping the barbed wire that tore my political seat desires is just a minor mishap. We will see and I’m hoping many others eventually will see the dangers of making an avowed Musslim-commie POTUSA will take the chance I am taking.

[Twink]

Romney gives us a POTUS who doesn’t hate America and everything it stands for. That’s what we have now. It gives us time to fix some of what’s broken. It’s a shot.

There were Conservatives running in GOP primary and none of them got enough votes to be the nominee. That’s a fact. The blame falls to those running and those doing the voting. Romney is the nom now and he’s running against Obama. It is what it is.

Your defeatist attitude about America and Americans is disgusting, imo. The overall direction of this Country is because the people didn’t fight when the Institutions were being taken over by the fringe. This was happening more than half a century ago, over 70 yrs ago. It isn’t anything new. And, our government has been incrementally taking away our rights since the early 1800s.

You think you’re thinking and acting like an adult by wanting this country to burn to the ground? So you think the same people who voted for Obama, the same people who allowed the media to dictate morality, the same people who allowed the government and some who ASK the government to control every aspect of their lives is going to somehow rebuild the country after it burns to the ground? Yeah, that makes sense. RME.

Some of those people who hate government intervention for what they don’t want, also cheer the loudest when the government intervenes for their pet issues. Both sides of the extreme do this and have helped caused the government regulations we have today.

I’m sorry if you think my wanting to defeat Obama, who stands for nothing that matters to me, is somehow me just biding time until I get what I want and to hell with my children and grandchildren. You obviously know nothing about any of that. I refuse to take the chance of possible rebuilding if this Country and the ideals it was founded on are burned to the ground.

I won’t stand by while my President (and various elected legislators), apologizes to our enemies, guts our military, does everything in his power to tank our economic system, and make the people more dependent on government subsidies to exist. I’m not willing to live through four more years of his and the liberal/communist agenda and then have to pick up the pieces and try to right this country again.

The media is 100% proppng him in a way I’ve never seen before. He gets free, positive advertising 24/7 regardless of his domestic and foreign blunders.

If Romney loses this election it won’t be due to some small faction of so called conservatives who can’t bear to vote for him. He will lose because more than half the voting population has no idea of our history, what the founders fought a war of independence for... Some are just looking for the usual financial handouts they’ve been given since FDR and then LBJ’s Great Society policy. Generations of welfare recipients who make more money collecting a check and never working for any financial compensation. An education system that the conservatives left to the fringe liberals to dictate curriculum and promote their agenda. Religious institutions who were infiltrated by those same liberals with their agendas while so called conservatives did nothing.

This blame game goes both ways. And there’s enough blame to spread around.

I will fight with everything I have to defeat this President who hates America and Americans. I’m not willing to give him another four years to destroy this Country, my future and my childrens’ future.

heh, “silver spoon milquetoast”-—nothing like class warfare huh?

Silver spoon sounds good. Don’t see a problem with it. Milquetoast sounds even better. I like it.

[publana]

Just speaking the truth as I see it. Anyone that claims to be Conservative but doesn’t vote for Romney is complicit in the continued destruction of this Country. They, like the Liberals, think they are smarter than everyone else. They, like the Liberals, think they know what’s best for everyone else. They, like the Liberals, are happy to destroy the Country believing they will get ALL of their enumerated wants sometime in the future.

I don’t see much difference between them, frankly. They are both selfish destroyers of this Country.

[Twink]

Who would be considered the largest party coalition members? The so called base if you will, of republicans? I don’t mean the base of over 30 years ago, but the base now in 2012?

[montanajoe]

All about the SC?

Obama at most will replace Ginsburg with another liberal and the balance of the court wont change.

Romney on the other hand will almost assuredly get to replace Kennedy and Scalia with liberals and the court will be liberal for two generations.

We can live with 4 years of Obama but the nation cannot live with 40 years of a liberal Romney Supreme Court.

[Religion Moderator]

This thread is posted in the Religion Forum.

The main guideline here is to discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Also, potty language - and references to potty language - are not tolerable on the Religion Forum.

[Twink]

Damn. I should have checked prior to posting. I didn’t realize this was the religion forum. Off the thread now. Sorry.

[JRandomFreeper]

I am conservative, I won't vote for Romney.

I don't ever expect to get what I want. But that won't keep me from trying.

I do find it best not to alienate others by calling them names. I will have to work with them after the election.

/johnny

[Yosemitest]

DannyTN, you've got some well brought up questions and answers with real facts.

But I want to know just WHO IS Tom Dougherty of " the right sphere .com" ?
I can't find very much on him, and maybe he's had training as a Senior Strategist at Stealing Share, Inc.
I think he's just a clown, causing trouble, and is really a liberal pretending to be a conservative.

But with that said, someone once said:

"You talk about rebellion-
there would be SO much rebellion that it would threatend to split or destroy the Republican Party if this happened:
GUARANTEED!"

"Establishment Republicans" wouldn't care.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!i

[brightright]

Very well stated. Before the primaries the MSM, talking heads and polls all said Romney was the only candidate that would beat Obama, and even had him winning by up to 8%. The ABO crowd fell for it and voted the worst candidate. If Obama wins it won’t be because of the conservatives who won’t vote for ROMNEY now but because of the liberals who voter for him then.

[ansel12]

I haven’t seen an freepers that are going to vote for Obama, yet you think that you have seen up to 10% of freepers willing to do that?