Posted on 11/07/2008 6:16:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As usual, the media has missed the huge story of this election. Their story is that Obama registered huge masses of new supporters and got them to the polls. At first, that was what I thought, but that is not the key factor. I was expecting the highest percentage turnout in 100 years amounting to 130,000,000 voters, but instead as of 5:00 PM EDT, 121,146,964 people voted for Obama or McCain. In 2004, 121,069,054 people voted for Bush or Kerry. Hence in a hotly contested election in which a fortune was spent on the race, there was no big surge in voter turnout. The population is bigger and the number of registered voters is larger than in 2004, yet just about the same number of people voted. What are we to make of this? We know that a higher than normal percentage of minorities and under 30 youths turned out pushing up the Democratic votes. We know that about 15% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for McCain-Palin (the PUMA voters). So how are we to explain the results? The conclusion is inescapable. The Republicans stayed home in droves. Obama did not win the election, the Republicans gave it to him by not getting out and voting.
For those of you who have been following my previous articles, you know I was predicting a McCain-Palin landslide in the electoral votes based on the P.U.M.A. Factor. Since these disgruntled Hillary supporters would normally vote Democrat, that should have been enough to tip the balance in the key states. I even allowed for a huge turnout because of Obama's vaunted ACORN express in my calculations so as not to underestimate the number of PUMA voters required. I have been doing this for 45 years and have never been wrong before. It goes without saying that when the results were widely different from what I predicted, I wanted to know how I could be so wrong. At first I thought it was because the PUMA voters did not turn out and vote for McCain-Palin but they clearly did. Then I thought that it was because Obama got millions of new voters to the polls and simply swamped the PUMA factor.
It was only when the turnout figures became available that I had to discard that theory. If the usual number of people voted yet more Democrats than normal turned out and there a sizable number of PUMA voters voting Republican, how could McCain-Palin have lost? When the results were staring me in the face, I was totally shocked. The smaller turnout meant that even fewer PUMA voters were required in the key states than I had calculated so McCain-Palin should have done even better than I predicted. Naturally my predictions were based on a normal Republican turnout. Who would have ever thought that the Republicans would fail to turn out in this election? While I am still busy trying to wipe the egg of my face, I am also extremely curious as to why so many Republicans stayed home. I imagine that I am not alone in wondering that at this point.
Did all the publicity about a Obama landslide and polls showing that Obama had it made in the shade cause the Republicans to stay home? Were too many Republicans so unhappy with President Bush that they felt that there was no point in voting? Were the Republicans that unhappy with McCain and Palin as the candidates? Were too many Republicans affected by white guilt about slavery and figured electing Obama would prove that America is not a racist country anymore? Yet the tracking polls only showed a 6% defection to Obama from Republicans. Mark Bureau has suggested that it was because McCain voted for the bailout bill which is an excellent point. Whatever their reason was, it does not change the results.
I will add two more possible reasons for the low Republican turnout. It has been speculated that it was the Romney supporters who stayed home. The other reason being floated is that too many Republicans bought into the media portraying Sarah Palin as a total twit. I have more than one personal friend that falls into that category. Obviously, my reputation for knowing what I am talking about is a bit tarnished at this point. A lot of people have written to say that they cannot imagine why anyone would listen to what I have to say. My answer is that I am not always wrong and I am not wrong about why Obama won. I offer in my defense: Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting. In case you do not wish to follow the link, here is the relevant part:
"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980."
REPUBLICANS FAIL TO FIELD A CANDIDATE SO OBAMA WINS
The rest of us are unfairly tortured.
Cry me a river. I voted for Sarah, but really, after a while the "We Suck Less!" formula fails to inspire.
Also consider the possibility of Liberals having their version of Operation Chaos (voting for the worst of the Republicans so as to help their side). All primaries should be closed and all caucuses should become primaries. Democrats should be the only people allowed to pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans should be the only ones allowed to pick the Republican nominee.
Ooops - I meant masochism - but some sadist stuff came out, too, I’m sure.
Ooops - I meant masochism - but some sadist stuff came out, too, I’m sure.
What neither they nor the McCainiacs had planned on was the huge disaffection McCain had created in the Republican rank and file last year with his threat to make the illegal aliens permanent residents.
Hence, a large surge in Democrat voters turned into a modest return for Obama and a serious crossover factor for McCain that initially obscured just how many Republicans didn't vote.
Although immigration reform may not be a big issue nationally in all sectors, it is a major issue with Republicans, and a politician who shows his a$$ to them on this issue WILL NOT GET THEIR VOTES.
Yeah - our diocesian weekly mag with “Vote Pro-life” on the cover arrived just in time at our house - Wed morning. The only time I heard/saw anything of the kind from our diocese during the entire campaign - pathetic.
Bullfeathers. I am sick of hearing that crap. Run real conservative candidates or sharpen up your wilderness survival skills. Quit blaming the customer because he won't buy your POS product.
My prognosticator says they’ll be impeaching Obama in December 2010 as the first order of business after swearing in a new House of Representatives. Rahm Emmanuel will be seeking political asylum in Lebanon.
“Ultimately, those who failed to support real conservatives in the primaries are the ones responsible for the nomination of McCain”
*******
Unfortunately, the way the Republican primaries award delegates, worked to screw us up this time.
If we had a system like that of the Dims, whereby its not a “winner takes all’ system, but votes are split according to % of votes attained, , McCain will probably have lost the primaries.
Of course the fact that the more conservative candidates split the votes of conservative voters, ended up helping McCain as well.
It’s time we changed our system, and did away with “winner takes all” primaries.
Mostly BS!
Maybe it was your timing - when everyone is on edge and sees the opposition - rightly - as evil, the time to criticize the “good guys” would be after the election - after would be a great time to say “I could’ve told you” but during the fray, not good timing. Ask Noonan, Parker, Will, Krauthammer, ad nauseum...
Agreed.
Good point.
In a football game, you have to play Offense and Defense.
We did not have an Offensive candidate, so you had to vote defensively for McCain to stop Obama.
Looking at the alternative choice, especially after picking Palin, this was a no brainer.
You win a cookie!
Those Republican voters the author is describing are Ron Paul supporters. How many of these people stayed home after seeing their candidate trashed by the very party that’s supposed to represent his values? How many of them stayed home after they registered Republican in the primaries only to see local GOP party hacks laugh at them and call them kooks? I know, I was there registering Republican voters before the primaries and most of these new voters only became Republicans because of Paul. The unprecedented fundraising Paul received online, yeah, that really came from Soros. Not - it came from everyday people who believed in liberty. The rallies that Paul was getting were the equivalent of what Palin was getting. Ron Paul was Palin before Palin became a household name. Add to the fact that the GOP completely ignored Paul’s advice on the economy and limited government, and maybe even on foreign policy a little too. There’s an elephant in the room here that the conservative media simply refuses to address or even acknowledge.
I don't see President Plugs as a whole heck of a lot better. Ask your prognosticator if both of them can be included ....
If Palin wasn't on that ticket, McCain would've lost all 50 states. I voted for McCain because of Palin. If he would have chosen Ridge or Lieberman I would have been spared the agony of who was going to be President-elect the next morning.
Face it, McCain ran an uninspiring campaign. No historic calls to Americans, no quotes from the Founders. Even Bob Dole in '96 called for abolishing the Dept of Education. Sheesh!
PUMAS, LOL. I was one of those idiots who thought the Pumas were coming to the rescue. I felt like one of the besieged in Constantinople before the Mohammedans finally breached the wall.
where’s that stupid winking Puma pic? LOL
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.