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

Skip to comments.

Lies & Clever Myths
Townhall.com ^ | January 19, 2013 | Steve Deace

Posted on 01/19/2013 8:53:03 AM PST by Kaslin

The best thing about math is that it’s a constant. The numbers are what they are. That’s why I’m a data guy, because as a person that believes in absolute truth I have a tendency to like things cut and dried.

Leading up to the 2012 election several lies and clever myths were postulated by the ruling class know-it-alls and the charlatans who act on their behalf, and you can bet they will continue peddling their wares this year in light of the results. But the beauty of real numbers is they cut through all the horse puckey right to the real truth. To prepare you for the onslaught of misinformation between now and 2016 from both the mainstream media and the Republican Party establishment, I have prepared a handy guide of real information to arm you with the truth.

Lie and clever myth #1: Republicans lose elections because they’re too conservative so independents side with Democrats.

TRUTH: Romney won independent voters in the crucial battleground states of Virginia and Ohio, two of the three states he had to win to win the presidency. In Florida, the other battleground state Romney had to have, he actually did 8 points better among independents than McCain did in 2008. In Colorado, Romney won independents by four points, which was 14 points better than McCain performed there four years ago.

Lie and clever myth #2: Romney lost because of the GOP’s alleged “war on women” so that means Republicans can’t be pro-life anymore.

TRUTH: What the GOP really has is a diversity problem. White voters in every demographic – including women and young voters – voted for Romney. Let me repeat that: a majority of white voters regardless of age and gender voted for Romney. For example, Romney won white women by 14 points. A massive turnout of racial and ethnic minorities – black turnout was equal to 2008 and the Hispanic turnout was a little higher – determined the election and gave Obama the support he needed to win.

Lie and clever myth #3: The Republicans energized their base, but it’s just shrinking so the party has to move left.

TRUTH: Remember the promises of 17 million evangelicals going to the polls that didn’t in 2008? Or perhaps you were sold on that Catholic voter backlash to Obamacare and its threat to religious freedom turning out values voters in a way Romney was incapable? Well, it turns out that neither happened.

The reality is 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals voted in 2012 than 2008. Fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than 2008 as well, despite the presence of two Catholic vice presidential candidates. 6.4 million Evangelicals actually voted for Obama. In the crucial battleground state of Ohio, Obama actually improved his white Evangelical turnout by 8% compared to four years ago. That’s probably because of the automobile bailout, but also pro-choice television ads Romney was running in Ohio that angered some pro-lifers. Romney also ran those pro-choice television ads in Virginia, and CNN’s exit polls found the Evangelical turnout declined by 7% compared to 2008.

Yes, Romney did get the same hefty percentage of Evangelical voters that George W. Bush got in his victorious 2004 campaign, but the turnout wasn’t as large.

Efforts to make Romney’s liberal record on social issues seem palatable in contrast to President Obama’s leftist social policies didn’t pan out, as yet again the social conservative base of the Republican Party proved it doesn’t turn out in full force unless it sees stark differences between the two candidates themselves—regardless of what a candidate’s proxies say. Apparently when Romney told the Chick-fil-a crowd last August you’re “not a part of my campaign” they got the message.

But Christians weren’t the only social conservatives Romney failed to successfully turn out. Get this: Romney even did worse among his fellow Mormons than George W. Bush did in 2004 if you can believe that.

Conclusion

Romney lost the election in the end because his base wasn’t as energized as Obama’s was. All the so-called “skewed” polling that pointed to an Obama turnout of Democrats similar to 2008 turned out to be correct.

If you count the 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals that voted compared to 2008, and the 6.4 million Evangelicals that voted for Obama, a future Republican nominee has almost 9 million potential new voters in 2016 if he actually reaches out to them credibly and consistently.

Adding a majority of those 9 million voters to Romney’s 2012 coalition would make the Republican nominee virtually unbeatable in 2016. But to accomplish that feat he or she will have to make them feel welcome in the party, and assure them that he or she shares their courage of conviction.

These patriots want something to vote for and not just against.

Persistent future attempts to sell them on milquetoast while scaring them into voting against dastardly Democrats may profit those doing the selling, but will likely result in even more of them staying home four years from now—and thus the GOP losing the popular vote for the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections.

The real numbers show patriots are growing increasingly tired of being asked to cast votes they know they won’t be proud of later. Modernization of the Republican Party is one thing, but moderation is another.

The GOP leadership now has a choice: stand for something and win, or stand for nothing and lose. It appears its base won’t move left with it, so if the party moves left it will need a new base.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election2012; electionresults; mittromney; myths; republicanparty

1 posted on 01/19/2013 8:53:07 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s a very illuminating example from Norway while the islamics were pushing for 8and got, to some degree) gag orders against public criticism.

TV-program, one of the well-known conservatives against a local cair lookalike. The conservative cited numbers, what really happens with muslim terror. Just statistics.

The muslim claimed that since arguments like that could not be defended against, they have to be silenced.

In your face.


2 posted on 01/19/2013 9:03:14 AM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nonsense, why does fail to mention vote fraud?


3 posted on 01/19/2013 9:03:28 AM PST by tommix2 (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
These patriots want something to vote for and not just against.

True. On the flip side, if we aren't smart enough to vote against Obama, we might as well just curl up in a ball and wait for the meds nurse to come by with the cart of "happinesss". Oh nurse....

4 posted on 01/19/2013 9:06:33 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The evangelical vote must have been black evangelicals.


5 posted on 01/19/2013 9:08:23 AM PST by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
2016 is a long way away. The country will not survive another 4 years of this POS. We will see massive unemployment, staggering inflation, stock market will crash 30% or more. there will be race riots, food riots, another WACO....Obama will watch and do nothing more then give UN speeches as Israel is devoured by the savages. With blood in the water, the Chinese will make trouble in the pacific-picking a fight with Japan and there will be a short war that Japan loses. Russia will act up. The balkans will be in flames. The US southern border will for all intents and purposes cease to exist. The MSM whores will blame it all on Bush. Did I leave anything out?

but hey! As long as the morons keep getting their obamaphones, they'll be happy.

6 posted on 01/19/2013 9:09:32 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tommix2
Nonsense, why does fail to mention vote fraud?

Egggsactly! Look at the number of precincts or counties that voted 90 plus percent or even OVER 100 percent for Obama. This election would have been close except for the Chicago style, Communist Union backed thievery that was employed to insure the Kenyan/Marxists re-election. Romney never had a prayer against such tactics and just for the record neither will any but a "Progressive" candidate in the next election should Obama consent to allow one.

7 posted on 01/19/2013 9:14:15 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tommix2

Because he’s a numbers guy, and there are no numbers available on total vote fraud.


8 posted on 01/19/2013 9:15:47 AM PST by SaxxonWoods (....Let It Burn....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
also pro-choice television ads Romney was running in Ohio that angered some pro-lifers. Romney also ran those pro-choice television ads in Virginia

Is this true, does anyone know anything about this?

9 posted on 01/19/2013 9:29:23 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny
2016 is a long way away. The country will not survive another 4 years of this POS.

I like what you did there.

With Obama POTUS is actually a POS and we should consistently designate him as such.

And SCOTUS is mostly SCROTUMLESS other than Scalia, Thomas and Alito! We are SOL if Kennedy and Ginsburg dump in the next 4 years. At least (the McCainesque) Kennedy promised to wait until this POS was out.

10 posted on 01/19/2013 9:41:56 AM PST by bondserv (God governs our reality and has seen fit to offer us a pardon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tommix2

Voter fraud had definitely a lot to do with it. Also that 0bama was planning to steal the election from the beginning. Why was he so sure that he was going to get reelected? It would not have mattered who our candidate was. Of course on the other side the divisions on our side did not help us either


11 posted on 01/19/2013 9:56:53 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
OVER 100 percent for Obama

Not that I know of. There were plenty of straight 100's (59 / 1500 in Philly) but none over 100. No 140% turnout either, only 70% times a two page ballot.

12 posted on 01/19/2013 10:03:44 AM PST by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: trebb
On the flip side, if we aren't smart enough to vote against Obama...

On the flip side, if we aren't smart enough to vote FOR a believer in a known heresy...

13 posted on 01/19/2013 10:29:15 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

60 million American babies have been kill because of this postition.

View Mitt’s pro-abortion ad here:

The spot features a disappointed former Obama supporter who does a little of the ol’ Google thing and learns that Mitt Romney “doesn’t oppose contraception at all” and “thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life.”
http://vox-nova.com/2012/10/19/mitt-romneys-pro-choice-ad/


14 posted on 01/19/2013 10:51:28 AM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Well I hope you feel very righteous about your decision and are enjoying todays inaugural festivities.

Also bearing in mind that the actual swearing-in is tomorrow in a private ceremony, and will most likely be done on a koran or a little red book.

15 posted on 01/19/2013 11:13:25 AM PST by Wyrd bi ful ard (Gone Galt, 11/07/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

It is ever more clear just what a disaster that you guys brought to the GOP and conservatism and America.

Why in God’s name did you work so hard to get a candidate who couldn’t even defeat Jimmy Carter the second?


16 posted on 01/19/2013 11:20:22 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I was for Perry, then Santorum.

But after Romney was nominated, I voted for him. A stay-home was equivalent to a vote for Obama.

Would Romney have called for an ''assault'' weapons ban and then use federal agencies to enforce his will while breaking the law? I doubt it.

Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.

Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.

I could go on and on. Yes, Romney sucked. But he was nowhere near as bad as Obama. Nowhere.

17 posted on 01/19/2013 11:26:38 AM PST by Wyrd bi ful ard (Gone Galt, 11/07/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Here you are still hacking for Romney, countering criticism of him, protecting and defending the choice, as others want to make sure that such an insanity is not again visited on us.

Four years away from the next presidential election, and instead of working to hammer home the disaster of nominating such a freakish and bizarre candidate you are working to defend the choice, to keep the possibility of a repeat, alive.

And you really don’t want to learn the facts about Assault Weapons bans and Mitt Romney.


18 posted on 01/19/2013 11:46:16 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Well I hope you feel very righteous about your decision and are enjoying todays inaugural festivities.

Also bearing in mind that the actual swearing-in is tomorrow in a private ceremony, and will most likely be done on a koran or a little red book.

You have insight into all kinds of things!

19 posted on 01/19/2013 12:05:36 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Yes, Romney sucked. But he was nowhere near as bad as Obama. Nowhere.

Remember the mantra: "The OTHER conservatives we vote for will hold Mitt's feet to the fire and make him go the right direction.

Well; where ARE they??

All I see now is a Conservative group that is rubbing the Emperors feet by the hearth, soothing them with appeasement.

20 posted on 01/19/2013 12:09:10 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

AMEN!


21 posted on 01/19/2013 12:10:26 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Your paranoia is misdirected. Firstly private searing ins are mot uncommon. More importantly, what is your point? Let’s say he believes in Islam or Maoism more than the Bible. That would mean he’s taking his oath seriously. And what is that oath? To execute his duties faithfully, blah, blah, blah, and to uphold the Constitution. But of all things he’s not gonna do that!

So why would he want to take the oath on something meaningful to him? If he does it on the Bible and the Bible is just another book, then the oath doesn’t mean as much, which is what he wants.


22 posted on 01/19/2013 12:21:53 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Also bearing in mind that the actual swearing-in is tomorrow in a private ceremony, and will most likely be done on a koran or a little red book.

No, it will done on nothing, like last time:


23 posted on 01/19/2013 12:27:18 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
I did hold my nose and vote for Romney, just to get that out of the way.

Would Romney have called for an ''assault'' weapons ban and then use federal agencies to enforce his will while breaking the law? I doubt it.

He signed such a bill in MA. He would not need to use Executive Orders, as he would get all the Dems and enough Republicans to vote it through the normal way.

Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.

He raised various taxes and fees in MA, in addition to cutting spending. Would the ratio be $43 for $1? Maybe not, but he's not much of a small government guy, so on the whole he'd be a tax collector for the welfare state.

Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.

For the most part yes, I think he would let it stand. He might tinker with it just enough for it to be renamed RomneyCare, but there's not much in it that is different from the Romney plan in MA.

The problem isn't that Romney is personally worse than Obama, but that he's a compromiser and this is exactly the wrong place and time to be compromising. With only the house in Republican hands, if Romney wanted to get things done, he would have to compromise with the Dems. It'd be easier for him to get enough R's on board a Dem-driven agenda than it is for Obama.

It'd be a lot easier for Romney to pass anti-gun bills or to make ObamaCare unrepealable, repeal DOMA, etc. And there is little reason to think he would not do so. Just as in MA, when he claimed he did liberal things because it was a liberal state, he would do liberal things in DC because it's really a liberal country (since the Dems hold a lock on the Senate).

24 posted on 01/19/2013 12:35:42 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Look at the number of precincts or counties that voted 90 plus percent or even OVER 100 percent for Obama.

Well, just take a look at WHERE those precincts are. If they're deep in Philly or Chicago, there's no question but that they're accurate. Not many folks in urban areas with large minority populations were interested in Romney, so seeing those percentages doesn't surprise me in the least.

As the article says, we need to concentrate on a good candidate next time, not just the 'next in line'.

25 posted on 01/19/2013 12:48:57 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wny

Succinct and to the point.


26 posted on 01/19/2013 1:48:43 PM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | 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