Skip to comments.Report: 2004 turnout numbers would have elected Romney
Posted on 04/29/2013 10:21:08 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would have won the presidency if the white and black turnout rates had stayed at their 2004 levels, according to a new analysis of 2012 election.
The battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same, according to The Associated Presss summary of research by William Frey, an expert at the Brookings Institution.
Overall turnout declined from 62 percent in 2008 to 58 percent in 2012, Frey reported.
The drop-off reduced the overall turnout by up to 5 million votes, despite a slight increase in the number of eligible white voters, said the AP report....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
And if my aunt had ....
Given that Romney won the white vote by about 20%, had voter fraud not been so rampant, had demographic factors not changed so radically, these past decades, Romney would have won in landslide comparable to Richard Nixon’s victory in 1972 and Ronald Reagan’s 1984 victory.
In other words, Obama won because of his cult of personality. Any other Dem candidate would have gone down in flames. Not sure I buy it, we will see.
I doubt that sincerely . . . with the huge amount of voter fraud orchestrated by the democratic party, there’s virtually no way for them to lose . . .
Unless and until the so-called republican party finds a way to prohibit voter fraud, instant registration, criminal counting, illegal alien and felons voting, and illegal counting and monitoring of all voting precinct, the democrats cannot lose.
Knowing full well that the last election was stolen, and considering the total lack of response from the Stupid Party, we’re doomed.
This country is finished the way we are going - slow grind to the bottom.
So why don’t you stop depressing turnout? (Pat Toomey? Marco Rubio? Lindsay Graham?)
And if Romney had them, he'd be President.
Yup...exactly.....hoping we could learn from Europe’s mistakes....instead we are following precisely in their footsteps in every way.
End of story.
Yeah, this and a dime will buy you nothing. Who on earth bothers doing this pointless research, which yields absolutely no useful information.
Perhaps if the Republicans had nominated someone NOT a RINO...they might have won.
Perhaps. However, the Demos could still have had a stockpile of votes ready to submit if needed.
That assumes they would have voted for Romney.
Based on late returns, Romney did get more total votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. He still lost, and Obama lost some 4 million votes, down from his 2008 total.
A non-fraudulent election would have given us Romney in 2012 IMO.
Millions of white conservatives did not show up and vote for the moderate RINO. End of story.
If you read the article, Romney lost because GOP voters didn’t vote for him.
Romney managed to lose to Jimmy Carter’s second term, yet here you are trying to create a fantasy of him winning in a Reagan like landslide, if only....
Romney has never belonged in republican politics, and is a failed and terrible politician with a single election victory during his 20 years of running, and he failed in that office, could not run for reelection, and was booted out of office with 34% approval.
Why would anyone vote for Obama-Lite when you could have the real deal.
The majority of voters seem to prefer free stuff over decent jobs and lower tax rates....that mixed in with the huge Democrat concentrations in most of the nation’s big urban centers (an incubator for voter fraud) and a declining white population were the biggest factors in the election outcome IMHO.
So if the Dems don’t nominate a black socialist, they’re toast. Wonder if Hillary knows this?
If Romney at the end of his term in office as governor of Massachusetts had only 34% approval from the voters in THAT state.....he must have done something right.
Are you kidding? You think that nothing is to be gained by looking at elaborate, expensive, costly disasters, that we lose an election that couldn't be lost, and we don't ask why?
The only thing Romney did that was “right” and earned him the disapproval was to label himself a Republican. Witness the fact that Brown was able to take a Senate seat on opposing Obama. Once he was found out to be a fraud, he lost support from both sides as well.
Why learn things when it’s so much easier to invent them and make gullible voters think a hard leftist (moderate my arse) is a conservative and it is a patriotic duty to elect him?
We taught him and the Republican Party a lesson they didn’t forget for a day or two.
We taught the GOP that we will eat anything they serve. We taught them we will moderate and they ran right out and pushed gun control, homosexual marriage and immigration ‘reform’ where previously they had not.
It is a fact that Romney won the white vote by about 20%. The fact ALONE would have guaranteed Romney a landslide victory like Nixon in 1972 or Reagan in 1984 had demogrpahic factors not changed so drastically these last two or three decades. In my state alone-—California-—whites are now less than 40% of the population. Republicans cannot get elected dogcatcher out here anymore. But CA used to be a red state in presidential voting behavior. From 1952 to 1992 the GOP won every presidential race in CA (except for 1964). Changing demographics have since turned CA into a solid blue state. Ronald Reagan could no longer come close to winning an election here in CA with our current electorate.
Or as the late, great, Dandy Don would say, “If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.”
His handlers undoubtedly knew that but the one thing they never sullied their hands with was getting more Republican voters ~ not even 100,000 out of the 90,000,000 people who don't vote!
You seem devoted to fantasy.
When the fourth republican governor in a row in a state is a dismal failure and leaves office with 34% approval and turns the state over to the democrats, then that is evidence of his incompetency, not a resume for appointing him leader of the national republican party and it’s presidential candidate.
Romney’s loss against Jimmy Carter the second was predictable by just looking at his political career.
My point is, why look at 2004 turnout figures?? They mean absolutely nothing eight years later and especially with three wave elections in between. It is absolutely useless research.
We know why Romney lost, because he was a sucky, moderate candidate in the same mold as all the other moderate losers. He was shoved down the republican electorate’s throat despite everybody being for literally everybody but him. And people are wasting their time going back to 2004 and saying “well golly gee, Ma, if only the same people that voted eight years ago had voted last November, why Romney would be president!” Why stop at 2004? How about 1856, check those numbers.
In fact, it's one of those stories that pretty much blames the victims first.
Well, sure — but the point’s moot, because the country has turned sharply leftward in its ideology since 2004. Many states that were once competitive are now conquered territory.
DD was awesome...
The Conservatives showed up. Others did not.
Yea...they traded principles for a win and lost both.
The fault is totally due to Bishop RomneyCARE who
imposed gay marriage and ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE,
and who attacked conservatives, demanded to be defended
by his WIFE while HE was a limp RINO.
One thing that gives me hope is seeing that Obama won 51% of the vote to Romney’s 47.2% with only 58% eligible actually voting. This means the actual numbers from all eligible voters are Obama 29.6%, Romney 27.4% and 42% didn’t vote for anybody. So only 29.6% of the people who could vote, voted for him. Gives me hope for the next election. Run Sarah.
The GOP/RNC gave us Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney ... 3 out of 4 LOSERS... Yet - we are told that if we have a Conservative - a real one - as a candidate we will lose ... Hmmmmm? How would anyone know that since it has not been tried?
In the 2012 elections - People wanted a choice not just a color difference...
If enough people stop supporting their country’s demise and vote for a candidate sharing their actual beliefs, we win in a walk. But the “win at all costs” idiots will not let that happen. They will vote for the next hard leftist the GOP serves up and call it patriotism as they did with Mitt Romney...the guy that helped people like Gonsel stay employed.
Texas and California have exactly the same percentage of Hispanic population, Texas went 57.2% republican and elected Ted Cruz.
Romney won 59% of the white vote and lost many white voters as the article mentions, Nixon won 67% of the white vote, and Reagan 64% of the white vote.
Nixon also won 18% of blacks and 35% of Hispanics.
Romney was a 20 year failed politician, a lefty who was pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, anti-guns, a bishop and cult leader, a lifelong anti-conservative, a weirdo who seemed out of touch with everyone, an isolated man who connected with no one, who had no conservative inclinations, no principles, and no reason to be involved in politics at all, and absolutely no reason for being obsessed with being president.
Romney and his 20 year political aspirations are still baffling.
People do not even know his politics, even people on this forum can’t tell us what his 2012 positions on abortion or the Boy Scouts, or the military were.
It is my firm belief that the 2012 Presidential election is the first one where the democrats used the technique of eliminating votes from count in heavily Republican/White areas. They only used to illegally add votes to their tally. Now they both add and subtract. We have been focused on the add side and have been making progress. Now we have to also focus on the subtract side as well.
They should do a large sample size poll in the key states to ask if they voted and for whom did they vote. Also if they were Republican and didn’t vote, why not? I would bet you that Romney would win the poll of those that voted in the key states he supposedly lost. This is why some prominent Republican strategists were left dumbfounded. Not because the votes weren’t there, but because they were not counted.
It was the only way the democrats though they could overcome a landslide when they Benghazi, make Obama a hero, plan went South.
When your past voters who are considered generally the better informed, more engaged voters and who tend to being more morals based and American/patriotic types who see civic affairs and voting as a duty, start staying at home rather than show up to vote for your more recent candidates, then you need to be looking at why.
Wait a second here. Do actually think Ronald Reagan could win today in CA with current environment here in this state?
Do you actually think that Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum could have defeated Obama?
Romney-—running with Paul Ryan ran on a platform of cutting corporate and income tax rates across the board, repealing Obamacare, pro-life, pro-gun, pro traditional marriage, reforming Medicare and Social Security, turning Medicaid, Foodstamps, and other welfare programs over to the states, and a massive increase in domestic oil and gas drilling as well as coal use and nuclear power. They ran as conservatives across the board on every major front-—from the social issues, to spending, and tax issues, and being very pro-business. Was this not enough? Not that Romney was perfect-—no candidate is—he did run an excellent platform which made perfect sense to me. Romney understands the economy, the private sector and business, something which I thought we really needed. And no candidate in the GOP primaries was more tough on illegal immigration than Romney was.
As flawed as Romney was, the country would have been better off with him as president than what it chose. Romney was the lesser of two evils, imo. (I didn’t vote for him in the primaries, but by the time it gets to NY, it’s a done deal unfortunately.)
If you were reading conservative forums, then you must have noticed that many conservatives and Christians could not vote for Mitt Romney, and they didn’t.
Did you know that we lost Ohio, and that Romney was running pro-choice ads there? Do you think that his coming out against the pro-life party platform in August, reduced turn-out, or that his reaffirming his support for homosexualizing the Boy Scouts and military deflated the base?
“cult leader” Ah, I get it now. It’s LDS thing with you. Get it.
Did you actually believe Romney? Did you believe Mr. Allsidesofallissues?
Ya think maybe a lot of us didn’t and promising moon cheese wouldn’t have made a difference for him either?
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.