Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney turnout 6.8% HIGHER in "Battleground" States than McCain (Vanity)
November 7, 2012 | Strategerist

Posted on 11/07/2012 7:11:45 PM PST by Strategerist

Comparing 2008 vote totals to 2012 (with some numbers projected, as for example Colorado only has 90% of the votes in) overall in VA, NC, OH, NH, PA, FL, MI, MN, WI, CO, IA, NV (all states were also battleground states in 2008) Romney had 21,674,900 votes to 20,300,366 for McCain in those states, for a 6.8% advantage.

In every individual battleground state Romney turnout was higher than McCain, from 20.4% higher in Nevada to 0.6% higher in PA. Ohio Romney turnout was 7.3% higher than McCain.

In the non-battleground state of NY, Romney had 6.6% LESS turnout than McCain. Interestingly in CA Romney turnout was up 5.1%, and in TX it was up 5.9%.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election; turnout; vanity
A lot of jumping on incomplete and un-analyzed data by people talking about Romney having less turnout than McCain. This is clearly because:

1) All the votes aren't in

And probably because:

2) In SOME non-competitive obvious Blue or Red States without competitive Senate or Governor races as well, because of the greater understanding and prominence of polling these days, people just stayed home since their votes didn't matter.

You may now proceed to shoot the messenger.

1 posted on 11/07/2012 7:11:55 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

MI, MN, WI were not battleground states.


2 posted on 11/07/2012 7:17:30 PM PST by frogjerk (Obama Claus is coming to town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Here is a brief summary of just how well Mitt Romney did in shifting voters toward him in 2012 versus what took place in 2008:

Barack Obama netted FEWER Democrat votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.

Mitt Romney earned MORE Republican votes in 2012 than were cast in 2008 by 3% points.
Read more in News
« Rush Limbaugh On 2012 Election – “Nation Of Children, Santa Claus Wins”

Barack Obama earned FEWER Black votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.

Mitt Romney by the way, earned MORE Black votes in 2012 than were cast for the Republican in 2008.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes from both married men and married woman than were cast for Republicans in 2008, while also improving support among non-married men and woman by 2% from 2008 as well.

Mitt Romney earned MORE votes among liberals, moderates, and conservatives than were cast for the Republican candidate in 2008 – in fact, this improvement was by a full 7% over 2008 – a very significant improvement.

Mitt Romney earned more votes from Protestants, Catholics, and Jews than the Republican nominee received in 2008, including a 9-point improvement among Jewish voters alone.

The two top issues according to voters were the economy and the budget. Mitt Romney earned A 38 POINT ADVANTAGE OVER BARACK OBAMA on the top two issues of the election – and yet Romney was somehow defeated.

Lastly, regarding the following three personal trait issues – strong leader, shares my values, and has a vision for the future, Mitt Romney DOMINATED Barack Obama among 2012 voters by 45 points. And lost the election.

___________________________

Here is the link to the data via the Washington Post. It is stunning, some might even say inconceivable, that a candidate improves in such categories as overall votes among Whites AND minorities, is ranked far ahead of their opponent in both the top two concerns among voters, as well as the three most important personal trait issues – and still loses the election.

That is exactly what happened last night. Somehow, someway…that is what happened to Mitt Romney – and to all who supported him.

See link below – and the dramatic shift in Republicans’ favor in 2012 vs 2008. A shift the resulted in a confounding loss that remains dubious at best…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/


3 posted on 11/07/2012 7:17:36 PM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Who cares?

We need to move beyond this. Right now.

We need to take over the GOP, bring back American jobs, and take our country back.


4 posted on 11/07/2012 7:19:07 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Thanks, and yeah, Freepers are a little frantic today...

Obama spent the last four years, while Harry Reid was running the government, building his reelection ground game.


5 posted on 11/07/2012 7:19:35 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
A shift the resulted in a confounding loss that remains dubious at best… Is WaPo of all rags seriously implying fraud?
6 posted on 11/07/2012 7:20:04 PM PST by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I am glad to hear this.


7 posted on 11/07/2012 7:20:41 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Good to know. However, given R/R’s huge advantage in fundraising over McCain, the difference should have been much higher. Especially with the SuperPacs.


8 posted on 11/07/2012 7:21:20 PM PST by rfp1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

There are some people posting incomplete turnout information in an effort to make a case for Palin. There isn’t one. While completely unfair, at this point Palin is just too divisive - too many women dislike her and the media has had too long to turn her into something of a joke outside of GOP circles.

Palin is not going to join some dopey 3rd party and she isn’t likely to run for President. Folks should really let that bit of silliness go right now. She is doing a good job as an analyst on Fox News, and I suspect that is what she will continue doing.


9 posted on 11/07/2012 7:22:02 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

It seems the turnout model ran smack dab into electoral reality.

They had a four year head start. You know that their organization OFA had permanent offices in Ohio, Florida and here in VA and in NC (to a lesser extent). They had people on the ground setting the stage for this election starting in early 2009. All those OFA people were getting paid by Soros money and some were even getting local college and high schools to give credit for kids coming to “intern”.
These people live a breath this stuff and we only concern ourselves when elections come around.
They have been polling and walking the streets asking questions for over four years. There is no way you can defeat that with a six month presence, just none.


10 posted on 11/07/2012 7:23:07 PM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Or... maybe those jumping on the un-analyzed data are looking forward to hatin' on their favorite conservative whipping boy.

Right on schedule.

11 posted on 11/07/2012 7:24:47 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Whitehouse Insider @ulsterman... I think this election was stolen, possibly setup between both parties...


12 posted on 11/07/2012 7:29:24 PM PST by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

here’s my issue- we’ve got the Koch Brothers, people like Alderson and probably even Trump with big bank accounts- why doesn’t the GOP do this??? why do they sit around and be passive-reactive???

and i’m not asking to do this three years in advance- bit how about last January when the primaries started???


13 posted on 11/07/2012 7:30:19 PM PST by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Well the idea is that this mythical “base” of millions of people that hasn’t voted in a Presidential election since 1988 because all of our candidates are RINOs (and lets be honest, GWB was a RINO to a lot of people) would turn out for Palin or a Palin-alike.

Even if that’s true, the likely effect would be to turn out 5% more Republicans in Mississippi or Texas, which would increase EV totals by....nada.

And you’d certainly lose more moderate votes than base votes you’d gain in places like Ohio and Virginia.


14 posted on 11/07/2012 7:32:09 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Yup, you are right.

Thanks for posting these numbers.


15 posted on 11/07/2012 7:36:36 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

Defeating any incumbent president is serious, difficult and expensive business, especially w a president coddled and protected by the MSM. Since 1900, only 4 presidents were denied re-election, three of whom were primaried. (Excluding Ford since he was never elected in his own right). Moreover, of the 4 defeated incumbents, only one was a Dem, Carter.

The race was this: Romney ran better than his campaign. Obama’s campaign ran much better than Obama.

They had a 4-yr invisible army that was missed or dismissed.


16 posted on 11/07/2012 7:39:08 PM PST by mwl8787
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

by last January, it would have been too late, IMO. They already had two election cycles plus countless local elections to prepare their models based on issues that could be translated to a national level. Now, without the same presence, they will not be able to replicate this and I’m not sure we will see the same commitment unless Hillary runs. and I’m not sure we see the same financial commitment if the economy takes a deeper dive. Even Soros has his limits.

We laughed at the term “community organizer”, well this is what it translated to.


17 posted on 11/07/2012 7:41:24 PM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

their goal was simply 271. They get to 271, they win regardless of the national percentage. It was never about a majority, it was always about 271.
Unless someone can figure out a way to make states like NY, CA and TX competitive, it has turned into a ten state election and the reality is that we need a very aggressive presence in those states year round, collecting data, testing models and testing messages.

That isn’t cheap.


18 posted on 11/07/2012 7:48:54 PM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

yeh- but you know the GOP always seems to be johnny come lately with this stuff...social media, etc....


19 posted on 11/07/2012 7:50:29 PM PST by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Strategerist. He had a higher turnout, LET’S BLAME HIM!


20 posted on 11/07/2012 7:52:35 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mwl8787

And they’ll always have an advantage: send a bus to a housing project and it will bring a bus load of Dem voters to the polls.
R’s will never match that efficiency.


21 posted on 11/07/2012 7:53:55 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

they had a very good presence in 2004 and they had the evangelicals doing the yeomen’s work. These people returned to their lives after it was over. The democrats start working the day after it was over.
Remember in 2004, Pelosi and Reid and a few other democrats were quoting bible verses in a national press conference the day after Bush won? That was when they started to court voters for the 2006 fiasco.They peeled away enough church-goers with a faux conservative message to turn a mid-term into a national event.


22 posted on 11/07/2012 7:59:44 PM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

There are some people posting incomplete turnout information in an effort to make a case for Palin. There isn’t one. While completely unfair, at this point Palin is just too divisive - too many women dislike her and the media has had too long to turn her into something of a joke outside of GOP circles.


No they are not posting to make a case for Palin. They are posting to show the utter stupidity of the GOPe.
Obama, so far has received nearly 10 million fewer votes than 2008 Romney fell short of 2008 by nearly 2 1/2 million from what McCain received.The numbers are easily verifiable I don’t know where this poster came up with his percentage points but they don’t pass the smell test, sorry


23 posted on 11/07/2012 8:05:01 PM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I don’t understand turnout was higher ...Ohio for example Mcain got 2,677,820 votes, Obama got 2,940,044
Romney got 2,586,467 votes, Obama got 2,686,609

even if all votes aren’t in in Ohio,( they seem to be, including the absentee) just not certified. I’m having a tough time doing the math where Romney turnout is 7.3% higher.

Please help.


24 posted on 11/07/2012 8:15:14 PM PST by stylin19a (Obama ->The Jayson Blair administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joshua
The numbers are easily verifiable I don’t know where this poster came up with his percentage points but they don’t pass the smell test, sorry

My apologies, I used a "spreadsheet" with "equations" and "data" and other things that godless commies like Nate Silver use, and that any true conservative rightly disdains.

25 posted on 11/07/2012 8:20:36 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Speaking of Turnout, I just did a quick lookup of the Obama vs McCain popular vote as compared to the Obama vs Romney Popular vote and here is what I see:

Election 2008

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

2008: Obama: 69,456,897 McCain: 59,934,814

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 129,391,711

Obama Victory Margin: 52.9% to 45.7% (9,522,083 votes)

Obama: 365 EV McCain: 173 EV

_______________________

Election 2012

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-election-results

2012: Obama: 60,652,149 Romney: 57,810,390

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 118,462,539 (2,841,759 votes)

Obama Victory Margin: 51.2% to 48.8%

Assuming Obama takes Florida (which as of this writing is still uncalled)...

Obama: 332 EV Romney: 206 EV

___________________

What I find interesting are the following:

1) There were more people who voted in 2008 compared to 2012.

2) McCain got MORE votes in 2008 than Romney in 2012. In fact, McCain got 2,124,424 MORE VOTES than Romney !!

QUESTION : WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE 2,124,424 McCAIN VOTES IN 2012?

3) Obama LOST OVER 8,804,748 Votes in 2012 compared to 2008!!

QUESTION: What happened to those 8,804,748 voters? Did they stay home?

I can only conclude the following, based on the above observations:

* There was LESS ENTHUSIASM by Americans to vote in 2012 than in 2008.

* Contrary to what we were led to believe by the GOP and what some FReepers claim they saw on the ground in their state, REPUBLICANS WERE NOT ENTHUSIASTIC TO VOTE THIS YEAR. In fact, I can see at least 2 Million of them staying home this year compared to 2008 based on the above numbers.

So much for the huge Get Out the Vote Effort, the huge, sellout crowds in Red Rocks Colorado and in Ohio...

* Even though Obama lost over 8 Million votes this year, most of those voters DID NOT switch to Romney, preferring to stay home ( I suspect many of these would be the disappointed youth of 2008 and the socially conservative blacks of 2008. The former still can’t find good jobs and the latter couldn’t vote for a gay marriage supporting candidate. However, they still could not vote for Romney. So, they stayed home ).

Also, I cannot help but conclude that a huge proportion of the GOP base STAYED HOME in 2012. Otherwise, where were the over 2 million votes that went to McCain in 2008?

This was a self-inflicted loss on the part of the Republicans.


26 posted on 11/07/2012 8:20:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
I don’t understand turnout was higher ...Ohio for example Mcain got 2,677,820 votes, Obama got 2,940,044 Romney got 2,586,467 votes, Obama got 2,686,609

I used the same 2012 Romney figure, but only 90% of the votes are in.

Thus the 2,586,467 was divided by .9. Final total may be a little off that, of course, depending on where the last 10% of votes are from , and I apologize for the satanic voodoo of manipulating the numbers.

27 posted on 11/07/2012 8:26:22 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There are MANY STATES with SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF UNCOUNTED VOTES.

10% are still out in Ohio. 14% are still not counted in New York. And that is just states I've looked at.

That's almost all the discrepancy just based on that.

28 posted on 11/07/2012 8:29:07 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
You are right on target. Millions of votes must be added to the totals. Romney will surpass McCain in the final vote totals. Obama is the one who underperformed. He won't hit 69 million this time.

The problem is demographic. Obama and the Dems are cleaning up in the 19 to 29 vote and the 30-44 vote, which comprised about 46% of the total vote. Romney won the age groups above 45 but not by the same margins. The GOP has a youth problem. We are not replacing our ranks as the old folks like me die out.

29 posted on 11/07/2012 9:13:26 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why do you persist in using these bogus figures? There are millions of votes that need to be added to those totals. How can you draw such conclusions with a lack of data?


30 posted on 11/07/2012 9:17:14 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad
Unless someone can figure out a way to make states like NY, CA and TX competitive, it has turned into a ten state election and the reality is that we need a very aggressive presence in those states year round, collecting data, testing models and testing messages.

Maybe it is time to ditch the EC, it seems to no longer be our friend.

31 posted on 11/07/2012 9:30:46 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Think 2014)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

The California GOP is a joke! They are terrible! I don’t know what to do about it.


32 posted on 11/07/2012 10:11:08 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

thanks


33 posted on 11/08/2012 12:30:15 AM PST by stylin19a (Obama ->The Jayson Blair administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

and they have several weeks to bus them with all the early voting


34 posted on 11/08/2012 2:19:26 AM PST by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Hi, Troll-boy.

You wouldn't lose "moderate" votes; you'd lose liberals who are spoon-fed whatever the MSM tells them -- liberal sheep. The problem is the press, who frames the language and the terms, and has (in effect) a "go-to" laundry list of smears with which to attack any Republican who shows signs of successful populism.

It's why we get RINO squishes in the Senate, while retaining the house: the press can dog-whistle masses of unthinking liberal vermin (like you, or your nuclear physicist anti-Palin friend from Virginia you mentioned on the other thread) from the blue centers to swamp the vote against any conservative.

The left has not just marched through the institutions willy-nilly: they concentrated on taking the key policy or funding positions among all societal organs which shape and disseminate opinion: and their first care was to bend opinions back ("crimethink") to marginalize, and make stereotypable, any principled opposition to their goals; or even to make it criminal in law, by proffering members of selected victim groups as spokespeople or power holders in key positions.

The key is to take back the youth and the press; and this is the more difficult simply because of the Marxist, totalitarian mindset of the intellectual left, which brooks no dissent, and cannot be shamed into allowing even token conservatives a seat at the table, nor allowing any of their own to stray from the fold "political correctness." (Larry Summers was the youngest PhD recipient in Harvard's history, I'm told; but one remark about innate gender differences and he was out on his ear; while Elizabeth Brown made unsubstantiated, likely-lieing-through-her-teeth claims of being part Indian to make it onto Harvard Law's faculty, while representing corporate clients such as Dow Chemical, and is hailed as a Champion of the oppressed.)

Cheers!

35 posted on 11/08/2012 3:54:41 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Thanks Strategerist. He had a higher turnout, LET’S BLAME HIM!

Careless misinterpretation on Strategerist's part, or careful indoctrination?

He had a higher percentage of a MUCH SMALLER vote total.

IIRC the total voter turnout was 50.1% (which, allowing for voter fraud by the Dems) was likely < 50%).

Romney was (as many here pointed out long ago) the favorite of the left: Bain Capital, flip-flopper, Mormon, rich, white bread.

If he had drawn larger numbers (absolutely -- from both Evangelicals and the mythical "undecideds") he would have won.

He lost the evangelicals on being Mormon, and on a history of liberalism / flip-flopping / abortion support.

He lost the moderates by allowing Obama to make a photo-op with Chris Christie to distract from Benghazi, and not countering the easily-manipulated slut vote on the idea that he'd "take away their birth control" (Griswold v. Connecticut anyone?)

Cheers!

36 posted on 11/08/2012 4:01:58 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The young slut vote.
37 posted on 11/08/2012 4:06:04 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

It wasn’t careless, and it certainly wasn’t a misinterpretion. It is exactly what is happening, including in your own reply.


38 posted on 11/08/2012 4:11:47 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Bookmark.

This is just...incomprehensible.


39 posted on 11/08/2012 4:16:50 AM PST by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
We need to take over the GOP, bring back American jobs, and take our country back.

You can't fight stupid people. If it didn't happen now with a loser like obama -- it ain't happening. It has to be all about looking our for ourselves and our loved ones. Screw everyone else.

40 posted on 11/08/2012 4:17:08 AM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

Bingo. Just look at the county map of PA. Solid red — and I mean SOLID RED red except for Philly.


41 posted on 11/08/2012 4:18:21 AM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
MI, MN, WI were not battleground states.

Not in play maybe, but they had enthusiasm against Obama (and some for Obama).

42 posted on 11/08/2012 4:20:27 AM PST by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Unless the way we vote has integrity, it will not matter who we put on a ticket. They will never win.

Until people wake up and understand that we can increase our vote totals but the other side can always gyp the numbers to be ahead. Taking over the party won’t mean squat.


43 posted on 11/08/2012 4:24:24 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Premise of the statement is wrong.

A larger slice of a smaller pie is not usually a winning strategy against someone else with a guaranteed base from a fanatical floor.

The GOPe is trying to use the evangelicals as an adjunct TO a base of the mushy middle, which will never work.

They get smeared by the press for being too conservative, and the real conservatives are tuning them out and not voting.

Real conservatives are on a par with, or greater than, liberals in numbers -- the GOP should build on them, and then add the big tent: not pitch a tent and try to carnival-huckster conservatives in, when they know from experience they will be betrayed (McCain-Feingold, endless promises of "vote for us to get the Supreme Court followed by Roberts on Obamacare, etc).

Cheers!

44 posted on 11/08/2012 4:39:23 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

then you get NY, LA, Miami and Chicago being the defacto capitols of the country with the rest of the nation being ignored.
At least, right now we stand a fighting chance if we organize but we will never be able to defeat the “Santa machine” if it goes to a national popular.
I say we revert back to the original intent and have Congress elect the leadership.


45 posted on 11/08/2012 4:45:25 AM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44
No...what I posted was from another analyzer on how the numbers lined up. But they got their numbers from Wapo.
46 posted on 11/08/2012 5:02:52 AM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

My apologies, I used a “spreadsheet” with “equations” and “data” and other things that godless commies like Nate Silver use, and that any true conservative rightly disdains.


Conservatives have no problem with spread sheets and data.
It’s only when the data is wrong. You have no idea where the uncounted votes are coming from but making assumptions. So yes I would put you in the same class as Silver.

Grow up


47 posted on 11/08/2012 6:12:39 AM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Real conservatives are on a par with, or greater than, liberals in numbers -- the GOP should build on them, and then add the big tent:

OK, who was the 'real conservative' running this time? Perry? Gingrich? Cain?

All of them flamed out for their own problems, not because they were 'too conservative.' Santorum? Bachmann?

Sontorum is a social conservative but if you look at his voting record no way is he a true conservative. Bachmann has foot in mouth syndrome. If she had won the nomination we might have seen an Akin/Mourdock moment or two.

How about the upcoming crop?

Rubio? Jindal? Christie?

Maybe Jindal but Rubio is pushing his DREAM ACT, which is poison for me. After Christie's performances with Obama and Springsteen I think the guy is mentally unstable.

So the pickings are pretty slim for true conservatives but I am open if they step up to run.
48 posted on 11/08/2012 2:35:49 PM PST by fifedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fifedom
Real conservatives are on a par with, or greater than, liberals in numbers -- the GOP should build on them, and then add the big tent:

OK, who was the 'real conservative' running this time? Perry? Gingrich? Cain?

Sorry, we're talking past each other. I meant numbers of constituents, not candidates.

The problem was a lot of constituents were waiting for Palin to declare, and withheld any one conservative from gaining critical mass; and, together with Gloria All-Red torpedoing Cain with a racist stereotypical attack of a sexist Black Man victimizing white women, you had Romney carpet-bombing his opponents with negative ads (just as his surrogates undermined Palin) and changing the primary rules (in Virginia, I think?) to exclude opponents: and ticking off the Paul supporters.

Each bit sapped a little support from his erstwhile base, which shaky enough to begin with, even without Romneycare, flip-flopping, and being Mormon.

Where are all the mushy-middle or Reagan democrats who were supposed to replace the religious right and prove them unnecessary?

Cheers!

49 posted on 11/08/2012 8:11:10 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson