Skip to comments.Obama--64,175,423 Romney--60,044,046
Posted on 11/26/2012 8:18:38 PM PST by Reagan‹berAlles
Still not finalized.
So Obama lost 5.3 million votes, and Romney got about 200,000 MORE than McCain but not enough.
Imagine if Romney did not have morons around him like all the consultants and idiots like Eric Fehernstrom who told the world to ignore everything Romney said in the primaries because they would Etch-a-Sketch everything he had said when the general election came along.
That alone probably made 5 million people, like Reagan Democrats, stay home.
Zero’s lead keeps getting bigger. Why? I suspect that the late counted absentee ballots and conditional votes are going to Zero in a big way. This would be your fraudulent votes. Any comments?
Leip is far behind Wasserman (who is doing continuous county-by-county updates).
It’s Obama 64,811,843 and Romney 60,444,303, and 2,186,461 Other.
The “vote thrower-awayers” are surprisingly numerous and much higher than 2008. It’s overwhelmingly for Johnson, so people shouldn’t kid themselves that a “true social conservative” would have gotten those votes.
Why are the red and blue colors reversed? That was a scary map until I realized the switch.
Why would one bother with illegal activity if the vote is already decided?
What’s the vote total for 0bama vs. Romney in the Swing States only? How many fraudulent 0bama votes were there? I’d imagine a heavy ‘union voter fraud’ MACHINE was working overtime, especially during EARLY VOTING.. GOTTA HAVE THAT EARLY VOTING AND SUPPRESSION OF MILITARY VOTES.
Red is the color of socialism. They used to switch back and forth on the colors, it wasn’t until 2000 and Tim Russert the Republicans got stuck with Red, which is idiotic.
My thoughts are that even after they pulled out all of the stops they could, including voter fraud and the undying support of the media, the left barely squeaked out a <2% victory with an incumbent. Take away the effects of the storm, put in actual journalism in the coverage of Benghazi, and take away the attempts to hide the true economic numbers and this percentage flips pretty quickly. We should stop with all the hand wringing around here and realize that at least half the country is on our side - and we can turn things around with good strategic decisions, and the right candidates.
I can explain that simply:
(just joking ... sort of)
It’s Obama 22,846,836 and Romney 21,085,930 in the swing states.
Red is usually the color of the incumbent.
When the absentee ballots and provisional ballots were filled out the vote totals had not been determined yet. The strategy, pretty obviously would be amass large amounts of additional votes in case they came into play such as with Florida in 2000 and Illinois in 1960.
On Saturday I saw (in San Francisco) a twentysomething guy wearing a "Gary Johnson 2012" T-shirt.
Thanks, I’ve been looking for more recent numbers. Make a post of that site here why don’t ya?
In the old days they used to use blue for the Republicans and red for the Democrats. I’ve read that it was John Chancellor of NBC News who came up with the idea. See this example from NBC’s 1980 election coverage, which has the map all blue for Reagan:
Not really sure why they switched.
Leip probably made a lot of his maps back before the colors were reversed, and decided to keep using blue for GOP and red for Dems for his new maps.
Headline: Romney beats McCain!
A few more votes to roll in, and he will have also beaten GWB’s 62 million vote total from 2004, and be the highest GOP vote-getter in history!
Another successful campaign from your friends at GOP-e!
They really outdid themselves this year.
You'd be surprised.
Te Red for Republicans took hold firmly in the Bush-Gore 2000 election. But even then there was noo common ground. On election night, several networks had Republicans as blue on their maps.
With its socialist-marxist leanings, red is more appropriate for democrats. As you mention, prior to the 1980s, blue was the Republican color on the three networks and in the color print media.