Skip to comments.Voting Rate Dips As Older Whites Stay Home [Enabled 0 to Win OH & PA!]
Posted on 07/20/2009 1:43:08 PM PDT by Steelfish
click here to read article
I don't think you know what topic you're discussing. You made a statement about voters who think they can punish Republicans by staying home. You don't understand why some voters stay home. They stay home because the Republican candidate, or presidential nominee offered has very different views from theirs on some of their most important issues. Sometimes, the candidate presents a gap so wide that they can't cross it. Such a situation is most likely created by a RINO, or 'moderate' Republican.
With McCain, it might have been amnesty, cap and trade, drilling in ANWR and offshore (he never agreed to anything unless the state involved agreed), campaign reform, pandering to interest groups, and his history of backstabbing his own party. Many republicans had several reasons to dislike McCain, and that kept a fair number at home.
Many took the view that it was better to have Obama than McCain, that Obama would be so extreme that voters would turn on him and the Dems, then we'd start to come back and there would be less damage in the long run than with McCain and a Dem. Congress. We are now in the months that will determine that.
But some conservative Republicans will stay home when the Republican candidate is too far from their issues. Everyone doesn't do lesser of two evils. Doesn't matter who likes that or doesn't like it. That's reality.
Yes? I sincerely doubt that. You think McCain would have bowed to our enemies and tyrants weakening us in the world? Do you honestly think McCain would have ignored the Republican stimulus plan option and shoved the Porkulus bill through? Do you honestly believe the House would have even presented the Cap and Tax bill for passage? You honestly believe the country would be facing this tyrannical health care plan?
I think you are delusional.
Anyone who stayed home or voted for Obama to “teach a lesson to GOP” are fully responsible for the current destruction of the USA.... no one who actually follows McCain believes he would have pushed abortion — for instance — on people and even go so far as be in favor of infanticide and I danged well know he would not be pushing this health care plan... or favoring a dictator in Honduras over their constitution — or apologizing to India, China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc., for being an American.....
Still, glad for bringing up the concept "Moderate Republican" and trying to equate it with "RINO".
That's absolutely silly. First of all, in an electorate with single member districts for electing representatives, everything focuses on no more than two poles of representation, and sometimes only one. That's the Bimodal Saddle. If you're not at one pole or the other you are IN THE FRINGE.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a "moderate" of any stripe. They are what they are ~ and currently they are Republicans, Democrats or fringe voters.
As far as candidates go (totally different subject) there are single member districts where ONLY ONE PARTY has achieved popular recognition. New York City is a good example.
So how does anyone but a Democrat win office there? Well, they don't, but there are Democrats who run as Republicans. They are called REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY. Here you find Bloomburg, Giuliani, Lindsay, etc.
Understanding that the principle of winning office is to secure your base and draw votes from the other pole, you will find that RINOs can pull off the trick without compromising their own otherwise pretty doggone Democrat principles.
That's neither good nor bad really. Without these guys the Democrats would be able to set their corrupt placeholders in office at will.
The problems arise when the RINOs are given standing in Republican party machinery. They should be kept out of the national machinery, and out of the state party machinery in a number of places also (where, for instance, a big dominant city, e.g. Chicago, is Democrat, but the rest of the state is Republican ~ you wouldn't want a RINO running Illinois corn country).
We could go on and on forever, but definitions are important, and always remember THERE CAN BE NO MODERATES. You are, or you aren't, and you get voted up or down on that basis.
Amen! And while I respect the right of every American to vote his/her conscience, I do not respect those who refuse to vote at all. Your voice isn't counted in a non-vote. People died to protect your right to be heard, not to sit silently on the sidelines and protest like a child.
So, McCain was a crappy candidate. We knew that, but then so was Romney and Huckabee. I mean, we seriously had no one. At least with McCain we got someone with experience, someone who we KNOW is a patriot, a war hero, a man who loves this country.
In other words, the total opposite of who sits on the throne today. So, yeah. Thanks a lot you sideliners.
And who of all the Republican possibilities could possibly have been elected last year? And don’t say Hunter because his loss would have been humiliating - I might agree with his principles but his presentation is a cure for insomnia. Sarah might have taken us over the top if she hadn’t looked like she flubbed the Couric interview and the media ...well, you know.
I was for Fred but now I’m not so sure Fred was for Fred.
If they survive Obamacare, I bet they vote en masse in 2012, and not for the Obamafuehrer.
I agree with you there 100%. I'm also not one who thinks the party should try to get rid of all RINOs. We're better off with whatever stripe of Republican that can be elected in the Northeast and other liberal areas. And my problem with McCain runs far deeper than his RINO tendencies. He's no longer an asset to the national party and national election efforts.
And, it is a real problem if a RINO becomes the presidential candidate. Some think they can always take the conservative Republican's vote for granted, but that's been proven wrong more than once. It's the conservative, red states that consistently go Republican, and if the national party thinks they can ignore the important issues of voters in those states, then they'll continue to weaken the party.
The new America Odinga style.
Nothing that some lead poisoning couldn’t cure.
Just keep treating conservatives like the democrats treat the black people of this country and see how long you republicans stay out of power. I don’t do rope-a-dope.
BTW, Giuliani could probably pull New York City voters, but could he win the state of New York? Odds are good that enough of the Conservative base would drop out that he'd lose the state. Plus, there's no way he'd be attractive to Democrats in New Jersey or Massachusetts.
Most Republican RINOs or so-called "moderates" are simply not attractive to most of the Conservative base, and cannot draw enough of the Democrat rank and file to make it worth running them for office.
Sarah Palin won in Alaska by drawing Democrat rank and file voters to her ticket. In contrast the most recent Senatorial campaign in Alaska saw the Democrat canidate using his Department of Justice contacts in Washington concocting a bizarre show-trial against his opponent, Senator Stevens.
After the election it was reported the DOJ had lied, misrepresented the law, and Stevens was actually innocent.
That sort of corrupt practice has to be accounted for in the calculus you use to set up a national win. Self proclaimed "Moderates" are incapable of doing that.
Romney could have been elected. No matter what the Romney haters here at FR say, polls were posted after Florida showing Romney received more votes from self-identified conservatives than McCain, and Romney did well among conservatives in general.
Huckabee was the spoiler, and hurt Romney by siphoning off votes that would have gone to Romney otherwise. Romney campaigned conservative, and was considered conservative by most Republicans.
I wanted Romney or Fred, but Romney would have been a great candidate, and would not have blown it during the financial crisis like McCain did.
Unfortunately, some of the same candidates can result in similar vote splitting in 2012, and might give us another RINO candidate that will turn off the base as McCain did.
Pawlenty in 2012?
The only non-Democrat I could see winning NYC in a Presidential election would be Bloomberg, sad to say.
Criswell Predicts: A Huckabee spoiler!
I'm afraid that's all too possible, and I doubt the Huck will be bothered one bit if he is a spoiler again (and won't admit it, again). The party better settle on someone early, Sarah or Mitt, or we might end up with Pawlenty.
Blue states can pick our candidate again if we aren't careful, then those states won't go for their pick in the general election.
So, if Republicans don't listen to you, it gives you an excuse to help Democrats remain in power?
Apparently, you love your own beliefs more than you love your country.
That's sad, and one reason we are in the shape we currently are... too many "conservatives" are just like you.
The scenario: A Huckabee candidacy would take votes away from Palin in the South, providing for a Romney victory. Huckabee gets HHS in exchange.
Less then perfect?
He was only ever so slightly better than Odinga and damn sure not good enough to convince the undecided who elect EVERY President.
If McCain hadn't sucked so damn bad he might have changed a few minds, but he did suck so bad.
Without Palin it would have been a slaughter instead of just a butt beating.
The Democrats are going to remain in power forever as long as the GOP keeps serving up RINO POS like McCain and the other clowns in the primaries. Especially when the Dims can cross over and pick the GOP candidate.
In closing my vote is MY vote and it will never be yours.
Then by not voting for RINOs you will be a party to keeping the Democrats in power forever. As long as you're clear on that, I'll make sure to rally as many people as I can to keep the socialist, Marxists out of office. I hate RINOs, but I hate them less than I hate communists.
OK, you can believe what you want, we are just going to agree to disagree on some of this, tho I do agree with your last statement....however with statistics.
2008 US electorate (not the population!) was
13% “Black.” (Wikipedia)
So you said they won with huge margins of blacks, etc, The population demographics don’t seem to support that.
So you said 40% white voted for obama (source?), well ok, that 40 percent is from the mere 66 percent of total whites that bothered to voted in the elections per the article....so perhaps if they had gotten out and voted, we’d be looking at a different summer. Sorry only 66% of white population percent voted (that included college kids btw)—that did not help GOP and enabled the great spender into office.
Statistically, the youth vote is not a large percentage of the total population. If every college-aged kid voted for Obama (& they did not) that would be 40 million; less than 20 million actually did vote in 2008,and the vote was 2:1—so somewhere around 12,500,000 voted for Obama.
So in my opinion, the other voter demographics you mention at the end of your post jwith the addition of unions, Soc. Sec, Medicare are actually the ones who put obama over ^ many of those are older and should have known better. Period. The “starry eyed” colege kids did not put him hin & like i initially said, they may want to lynch those who are responsible.
Here are the numbers: total votes cast 131.3 million
votes for obama 64,629,649
college-aged who voted: <20 mil
2/1 is somewhere a little
uner 13 mill
Who were the other 51,700,000 who cast obama votes?
Again, sorry, I don’t hold up & coming voters or current younger voters fully responsible & they are going have a huge right to be mad. I feel that we as the older generation and their parents should have done a better job of fighting liberalism when it crept in with FDR and LBJ (both before my time btw). Oh —I have had my reps on speed dial for years, but obviously our education system has failed at teaching civics, our media has failed at reporting the news, and so what should we expect from younger and college-aged voters. As I said, many actually get a clue when they graduate and join the grownups in the real world.
the article sums it up Last November, voters under 30 cast ballots for Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio. Still, because of their smaller numbers in population and turnout young voters weren’t critical to the overall outcome and only made a difference in North Carolina and Indiana, according to Scott Keeter, Pew’s director of survey research.
I do agree: Who you can really blame are the leftists, and those who vote with them: Liberal white, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and all sorts of narrow interest groups like feminists and gays and environmental extremists, who have members from all ethnic groups.
It would be nice if we’d close our primaries to rats. Sheesh! Maybe we could at least get OUR candidate.
I’m in the mindset that whoever gets the nomination gets my vote. The fight is in the primary - after that for me there is only one choice - vote against Obama. As far as I’m concerned that $OB wants to kill my mother.
I never said who I voted for, so you pulled that out of your ass. Maybe you should pull your head out next and learn to read.
I did explain things to you in as simple a way I could hoping you would understand but I guess I couldn’t make it simple enough.
I’ll try one more time. McCain got the votes he got from the die-hard conservatives and Republicans. He DID NOT get any undecided or swing votes, If he hadn’t sucked so bad he might have gotten some of these vital votes. Without these votes no Republican stands a chance.
The RINO’s in Congress and screwed up primaries didn’t help us a bit either.
Maybe this simpler version will get a brain cell or two of yours clicking as attacking conservative and blaming them for Odinga ain’t gonna get you anywhere.
At my age he wants to kill ME!
I agree with what you said but we cannot win without the undecided voters and an idiot like McCain ain't gonna change any minds.
Yes, they do support it. Just up the white percentage I used some and it supports it perfectly. I told you I was using approximate figures. Here, using your figures:
White vote: 73% X 45% = 32.85
Black: 13% X 95% = 12.35
Hispanic: 9% X 70% = 6.30
Other/Asian 5% X 70% = 3.50
Total 100% 55.00% for Obama
That's very close to Obama's %. Other includes Jews, Muslims, etc, and Obama got high percentages of those ethnics. The first % is your % of what % each group was of the total vote, and the second the % Obama received from each group.
And, just my opinion, young people voting 2 to 1 for Obama are very much responsible for all the additional debt he piles up. Or maybe they didn't know enough to be voting, which is no excuse.
And, as the winner, Obama did much better among whites than Gore or Kerry, so, his minority support is a lesser percentage of his total than for Gore or Kerry. But minority votes are still almost 1/2 the Dem votes in presidential elections.
This is about all the effort this is worth. McCain clearly won the white vote, and Obama got the indicated high %'s of the black, Hispanic and other votes.
Here from an article. Should have Googled this sooner, but it shows Obama getting less of the white vote than my estimate. Obama 53% of total vote, 43% of white vote:
“McCain beat Obama among white voters by an even more impressive 12-point margin. Obama got 53 percent of the broad electorate to vote for him but only 43 percent of the white electorate. When I say “white electorate,” I don’t mean the white working class, or white Southerners, or any other subgroup whose capacity for racial tolerance has long been held suspect. I mean all white voters.”
bushwon, that Slate article I link discussing the things presented in the subject of this thread more clearly than the thread’s lead article.
ok, thanks for the link
Oh, ad hominem attacks--a typical strategy of those who have no legitimate argument. If you will note in my comments, prior to yours, I was discussing the failure of conservatives to vote for a "RINO" because they aren't happy with 100% of the candidate's positions. I wasn't talking about McCain's inability to persuade swing voters and undecideds. You're the one who mis-characterized my line of reasoning. Now, who needs to learn to read and follow along?
lol, then the choices are teeatily-dee and teeatily-dum there is no point in voting.
That would be you as nothing has changed as you think pissing off conservatives is a sensible tactic to getting them on your side.
Every time you post that someone who didn't vote for Odinga elected him or say how they voted when you were not in the booth is an ad hominem attack and a damn lie.
Everyone can see it and you fools spouting this crap are fooling only yourselves.
How can you expect anyone to vote for someone who you do not agree with 100% of the time?
Is this what you really meant?
Yes it does and hopefully the GOP got the message. But if not I'll skip the next election too and I certainly hope millions of other conservatives will join me. After 8 years of big spending, government growing, open borders outsourcing George Bush I am never voting for another progressive liberal democrat, even if he does have an R next to his name. Want to keep on losing? Keep on nominating liberals.
McCain beat Obama among white voters by an even more impressive 12-point margin. Obama got 53 percent of the broad electorate to vote for him but only 43 percent of the white electorate. When I say white electorate, I dont mean the white working class, or white Southerners, or any other subgroup whose capacity for racial tolerance has long been held suspect. I mean all white voters.
There, now, I’m not saying it, Slate is saying it. White conservatives who stayed home could have very well been the difference. And why is asking someone to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions offensive to you? If you didn’t vote for anyone, on principle or out of protest, you have lost your right to complain about the outcome of the election.
If conservatives chose not to vote for McCain on principle, then why should they be pissed off now? I mean, they didn’t want either candidate to win, since they didn’t vote, so why do they even care now?
How is asking them to be held accountable for their inaction in a country where voting is our only defense against tyranny and the leftist mobs (ACORN, Black Panthers) who seek to steal our free and fair election process from us, how is that so out of line with conservative principles which espouse personal responsibility and a greater engagement in the electoral process?
When I screw up, I usually swallow my pride, admit my mistake and suffer the consequences for it. Conservatives who didn’t vote at all need to man up and do the same.
Because I'm pragmatist. I have never, ever in all my adult life voted for someone with whom I agreed 100% on all the issues. I don't think that's unusual. My positions on issues are not in lock-step with my leaders. I am an individual with my own personal views, so I vote for the person with whom I am most closely aligned. But I never, ever refuse to have my vote cast and counted in a national election.
Think? I doubt you can engage in such a complicated process. Thinking requires one to consider all angles. McInsane is out for McInsane and nothing more. He derailed many a Conservative issues with his "Moderate" (A.K.A. Liberal) stance including the G.O.P. Opposition to the Bailout.
Time and Time again he has stopped true progress towards a more Conservative and Fiscally Responsible Federal Government. He is the worst sort of Politician and he is now engaging in torpedoing Palin's chances at National office because he was embarrassed by the attention she garnered which made him look small.
McCain is a loser and he would have given us nothing but Liberal Lite.
McCain would have kowtowed to whatever the Democrat Congress would have demanded of him so he could make it look like he was leading.
Here's hoping he retires soon and goes away for good.
Dude, things are working out perfectly, exactly as I and many many others figured they would.
First off McCain would have done just about everything Obama's done anyway, but then Republicans would have been blamed instead of Democrats. Now Republican have a chance to get there act back together.
McCain was already on board for a bailout. McCain would not have let GM and Chrysler go bust. McCain believes in Global warming so he'd have done something there too. He's pro amnesty. Not sure if he'd be up for socialized health care but he's a big government guy so it would not surprise me.
Personally I don't see much that Obama's doing that McCain would not have done too. So yea, I am very happy that I did not vote for either one. And if the GOP nominates another McCain I'll sit the next one out too.
Ok, I got it. Since I don’t agree with Odinga 100% of the time I should have voted for him? In fact I don’t agree with him 100% of the time so I didn’t. It would not have made sense to do so.
Hell I never agree with Odinga yet you think I should have voted for him? That is not being a pragmatist, it is a lack of understanding English or a lack of the ability to write clearly.
Finally, people like you allow the GOP to run liberal RINOs that many people cannot stomach so in fact it is your fault not theirs that Odinga won.
Okay, this English-degreed, debate coach will overlook your obfuscation and ridicule as tactics to distract from your inability to present a cogent, well-reasoned argument and walk away.
Finally, people like you allow the GOP to run liberal RINOs that many people cannot stomach so in fact it is your fault not theirs that Odinga won.
I don't believe that a war hero who spent five years in a POW camp would have shaken hands with dictators and tyrants or bowed to a Saudi king. I don't believe he would have dissed our British allies with DVD collections, nor do I believe he would be crapping all over Israel right now. I don't believe his plans for energy included anything like the cap and tax, so he wouldn't have allowed any such thing to pass his desk. I KNOW he wouldn't have repealed the legislation that alloww taxpayer funds to pay for abortions abroad. I think he would have tried to veto porkulus because of all the earmarks, which he demonstrated he never supported as a Senator. I don't believe the Congress would even be trying to do all the power grabbing legislation they've been doing if they knew it had to pass muster with McCain. I don't like his stance on amnesty, but in case you haven't noticed, we haven't even gotten to that yet. So that is moot point. My question is, would McCain have done everything Obama has done thus far in six/seven months? I can answer that unequivocally, NO!
And to your argument that they would have blamed Republicans, blah, blah, blah. Once legislation is codified, it's a lot harder to get rid of. I think the damage done to our children and grandchildren in the way of excessive spending and the out of control money-printing in the last six months is far worse than the single TARP bailout that McCain supported last fall.
Tempest in a tea cup, who cares? Non of the above means squat to me.
" I don't believe his plans for energy included anything like the cap and tax, so he wouldn't have allowed any such thing to pass his desk."
Oh really? McCain in New Hampshire ....
"CONCORD, N.H. -- In his final push for a primary victory, Senator John McCain arrived here this afternoon and made a pitch that might have surprised voters: He cast himself as the environmentalist of the presidential campaign.
"I will clean up the planet," McCain said. "I will make global warming a priority."
There is a lot more on McCain and global warming. McCain has a long history of promoting Democrat policies and since Global Warming was a top priority for him I's say chances were excellent that had he won something like cap n trade with and R label would have been produced in a McCain administration.
I think he would have tried to veto porkulus
Once again the facts are against you. McCain suspended his campaign to rush back to D.C. and pass porkulus_1. So there is no reason to think that as president he would oppose a porkulus_2 that all the finance guys (spit) were saying was needed to save the economy.
And to your argument that they would have blamed Republicans, blah, blah, blah.
Well when your opponent is reduced to blah, blah, blah as an argument you know you've won. lol.
No, there wasn't. McCain and 0bama are one in the same.
They’re different. One of ‘em is short with gray hair.
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.