Friday, November 9, 2012

Akin and Mourdock did not hurt Romney

The notion that Akin and Mourdock's comments cost Romney the election is utter nonsense. The following is all the evidence needed to destroy that argument. The comments had absolutely ZERO effect on the presidential race in Indiana or Missouri. We're supposed to believe that they influenced voters in Florida and Ohio to vote for Obama? Please.............

Missouri 

Romney: 53.9%
Obama: 44.3%

RCP Missouri presidential race polling history

McCaskill: 54.7%
Akin: 39.2%

RCP Missouri Senate race polling history

 ----------------------------------------------

Indiana

Romney: 54.3%
Obama: 43.8%

RCP Indiana presidential race polling history

Donnelly: 49.9%
Mourdock: 44.3%

RCP Indiana Senate race polling history

Cross posted at Redstate

15 comments:

jrterrier5 said...

Oh, but they did in other states where young women were persuaded that Akin & Murdoch are the GOP. I know a number of that demographic. It affected them.

I know it's only anecdotal evidence but I bet everyone has similar anecdotes to tell.

Ohio JOE said...

If only these two guys lost their seats, the RINOs would have an argument, but we lost in seat after seat after seat. In short, the Republican National Senatorial campaign was not a whole better organized than the Romney campaign on a national level. Our campaign sucked.

BTW, the punk who asked me on the phone to donate to the committee was not the sharpest tool in the shed. I again gave to individual candidates rather than that Committee.

leighrow said...

Akin and Mourdok's statements fueled the DNC's war on women narrative at the time Romney was picking up momentum. Their statements spilled over to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. People have to remember that Obama received a high percentage of the single women vote. Since the majority of single women are weak,stupid,gullible,emotional... and only vote with their lady parts not their smarts;... and want Uncle Sam to take care of them.....they immediately fell for this manufactured war on women.

Right Wingnut said...

Why didn't it affect Romney in MO or IN then?

leighrow said...

RW-because the Dems placed all of their ad money in the battleground states.

leighrow said...

RW-I mean the Obama presidential campaign placed the anti-Romney specific ads in the battleground states focused on Romney.The war on women was ramped up in these states as well.

This was not the main cause for Romney's loss but it was a contributing factor. I read where the unions had 400,000 union members in battleground states like Ohio, getting out the vote along with all of those useful idiots who attend college.

Right Wingnut said...

You're efforts to spin your way out of my question didn't work. Their comments were much more well known in their respective states than they were elsewhere. The war on women was a nation wide campaign. Voters punished Mourdock and Akin, but Romney didn't even take a noticeable hit in the polls. Half of Obama's voters don't even know who the Vice President. Don't expect many to believe his voters in Florida even know who Mourdock and Akin are.

Enough with the excuses. Romney lost because millions of McCain voters stayed home.

Right Wingnut said...

Your, not you're

Right Wingnut said...

I blame all typos and poor grammer on my iPhone. :)

cimbri said...

These 2 clowns absolutely killed us. Akin really damaged Romney's earlier momentum and Mourdock damaged us further. I am still very ticked off at every conservative, like Dana Loesch, Mark Levin, et al, who threw a life line to Akin when we almost had him out of there. Bad move guys, bad move. Stop thinking emotionally and use your hard head. Akin was damaged goods and should have been out of there.

Right Wingnut said...

cimbri,

If it didn't hurt Mitt in Indiana and Missouri, it likely didn't hurt him elsewhere. Stop looking for scapegoats.

leighrow said...

RW-How do you know that this did not hurt Mitt in IN and MO. Mitt could have won by wider margins. Bottom line is that we will never know.

I in all honesty can not see a Republican ever winning the white house. Everything seems rigged to me including the machines.

It feels like there is a global power that selects the winner in advance and then they go through with the election games and their preselected candidate always wins. The winner is usually the one with the smallest brain which makes for the easier puppet.

Our borders will be over run with illegal immigrants who will probably be granted amnesty under Obama and then they will flood to the polls in the battleground states and vote for the Democrat in 2016. I truly feel like this is a lost cause and a waste of time.

Right Wingnut said...

Because the poll numbers in the presidential race stayed relatively steady while Mourdock's and Akin's tumbled.

Romney outperformed McCain in Indiana by 12 points, and in Missouri by 10. Nationwide, he only outperformed McCain by 5 points.

You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument that Akin and Mourdock even hurt Romney, let alone cost him the election.

Ohio JOE said...

The bottom line is that it is time for the liberals and moderates to put up or shut up. If they were really concerned about women and women getting rapped, they would impose stiffer sentences on the Rapers. Instead liberal judges let rapers off with a snack on the wrist instead of hard jail time and castration and then turn around and blame Mr. Akin for all the problems in the world. It would be funny if it were not so freakin tragic.

Anonymous said...

you're awesome joe