Saturday, November 24, 2012

Romney's Loss wasn't the lack of turnout... it was minority appeal

Kimberley Strassel penned an op-ed in the WSJ that seems a good argument against those who feel the loss was do to the lack of turnout:
The turnout myth comes from a statistic that has been endlessly repeated: Mitt Romney got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008. This isn't quite true (Mr. Romney this week eked past the McCain totals), and in any event it is somewhat irrelevant. The Romney vote count reflects a nationwide voter turnout that was down nearly five percentage points from 2008. What matters is how the GOP did in the battleground states. 
And there? Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain's numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.
By contrast, Mr. Obama's turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.
So what happened? She argues that it was a super turnout of minorities in swing states and the Democrats get out the vote in those states vs. very little effort by the GOP (ORCA being a disaster).

For example:
In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama's margin of victory there was 103,000.
This article is well worth reading in it's entirety. You can do that HERE.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.


BOSMAN said...

I agree Mitt told the truth. This article seems to beck that up.

Minorities made the difference in those large urban areas where public assistance is running rampant.

It will be tough for Republican to convince work phobic and multi-generational government dependent voters that working to better oneself is better than sitting on collectives asses with a remote control, free cellphone, and a bag of doritos.

Bob said...

Maybe we need to start playing dirty. register as Democrats. Run for office. Promise the takers we'll bring gifts and once elected, do the opposite.

You may not get reelected, but perhaps stay in office long enough to get things done.

Dumb Plumber said...

Aside from the 5 million Palin voters that did NOT vote for Romney, I would add this observation.

With 66 million idiots voting for Obama, the 'Ignorant' are no longer a minority.

Anonymous said...

Palin had 5 million that did not vote? Now I'm laughing so hard i'm wetting myself. ANYONE who did not vote thinking that this quitter would be viable in 16, needs a new brain.

newark hawk said...

Byron York and other election analysts have shown that Romney would have lost this election even if he received the same 40% of the Hispanic vote that Bush received in 2004.

Romney didn't lose this election because of the Hispanic vote, he lost it because of the Republican vote.

Romney/2012 & McCain/2008 each received roughly 60 million votes in the general election.

Romney received a lot more votes from Independents than McCain did, but McCain received a lot more votes from Republicans than Romney did.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the constant bashing, smearing and demonizing of Romney on "conservative" Talk Radio shows during the GOP primaries not only helped Santorum, Gingrich, Cain & Perry - it most of all helped Obama by causing millions of Republicans to stay home on November 6th.

With friends like that, who needs enemies.

ellie said...

Romney was the conservative in the race. I hope he's back in 16. We need someone like Mitt. We need him today, but we have a stupid wing of the party, and an even stupider wing of the country.

Anonymous said...

I can see Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida. But what about the screw up with the absentee ballots of the military.

Is there any word or estimates on how many veterans ballots were lost nationwide?

Nemesis said...

Obama (or, shall I say, Valerie Jarrett & Co.?) ran a Presidential campaign based on class warfare, racial divisiveness, and gender politics. That, along with the militant get-out-the-vote effort by the public/private-sector unions and a hefty dose of voter fraud in the swing States, produced a relatively narrow victory for the incumbent President. We all lost on 11/6/12, as the next four years will make plain.

newark hawk said...

As long as we allow a small gang of crony capitalists & political hacks to dominate the public airwaves, our nation is doomed.

The First Amendment to the Constitution requires free speech for all points of view - not a government-sponsored bully pulpit for politically correct points of view - but you would never know it by the television & radio coverage of the 2012 presidential election cycle.

During the primaries, the ABR(Anybody But Romney) cheerleaders were in charge; during the general election campaign, the Obama cheerleaders were in charge.

Romney's cheerleaders in the mass media were far outnumbered from start to finish, and that, more than anything else, is why he lost on November 6th.

newark hawk said...

We no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Somewhere along the way, it became a government of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests, with the number one special interest being the mass media.

The mass media is at the head of the pack because it delivers something far more important than money to the political class. It delivers nonstop propaganda, which is priceless.

Anonymous said...

You guys are still talking about this? Romney lost because the average American could not relate to him. They feared he would not extend their unemployment. One of the key issues of the past 4 years is ObamaCare, Romney was castrated on the subject and quite frankly, did a horrific job explaining why what he did in Massachussetts was any different than what Obama did on the federal level. Some of you guys explain the differences better than he did.

Sure the media worked their voodoo for Obama, we always knew that would happen, they did it in 2008 even worse than they did it this year. Romney's campaign was horrible, Obama's was better. Romney involved himself in too many discussions that were not about the economy. He should have ignored such comments.

Down ticket candidates hurt Romney and Romney hurt down ticket candidates.

The whole party needs an overhaul but, like usual, the party has their heads up their asses. They believe that since they didn't do well with hispanics, that they can alter their stances on immigration and then they will win... so cookie cutter. Everything is so black and white to party leaders. They are out of touch. Romney aligned himself with, what he thought, was the perfect campaign machinery... the Bush apparatus and they proved once again how out of touch they are.

The good news is that no other candidate running would have done a better job... except for perhaps Gingrich. He could have argued against ObamaCare better than Romney. He would have done better with Crowley, and the MSM, but like many of you argued... he had his own issues and would have lost as well.


Anonymous said...

To add, the smartest person this past election cycle was Palin... she saw the writing on the wall and was smart enough to not get in. She would have won the primary if she had entered the race and knew she, too, would have lost the general election.


Anonymous said...

jr, I am average, and I related quite well to Romney.

newark hawk said...

Here's why Romney lost:

1- The mass media bashed, smeared and demonized Romney throughout the primary & general election campaigns, while simultaneously protecting, defending and covering up for Obama.

2 - Hurricane Sandy - with Chris Christie's help - had a HUGE IMPACT on undecided voters.

3 - Massive voter fraud by the Dems, as usual.

4 - The GOP'S GOTV effort was a disaster, starting first & foremost with ORCA.

5 - Romney ran a one-dimensional campaign focused only on the economy, while ignoring HUGE Obama vulnerabilities such as Benghazi, Fast & Furious and his support of partial & post birth abortion; Romney ran a timid campaign that did not attack Obama often enough, sharply enough and passionately enough; Romney ran a feckless campaign that did not vigorously expose Obama's lies and hold him accountable for telling those lies(e.g. - Have you no shame, President Obama?!?!?).

All the other reasons for Romney's loss pale in comparison to these five.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:08pm - well you're an exception then... I assume you hold other things in common with Mitt. The average, American I am referring to is saddled with debt, perhaps has kids in college, perhaps they lost their job and are relying on the unemployment insurance to have heat for their family this winter couldn't relate to Romney's 300 million dollar wealth.


Anonymous said...

nh, it's hard to rebut your comments because there is SOME truth hidden within every point, but the fact remains that he received 47% (oh the irony) of the vote - this country is a divided nation and he received just about what the division calls for.

The real sad part of the tale is that McCain
/Palin only spent 70 million dollars compared to Romney/Ryan's 1 billion. Since Romney only slightly over performed McCain, I would say McCain got more bang for the buck. When you consider that Obama under performed this cycle, then Romney really didn't do that great.

Your final point is the most interesting, you think Romney cared only about the economy, I say he wasted time discussing other issues and didn't focus on the economy enough. In the first debate, where he excelled, it was based on his economic performance. Where he failed in other debates was based on ObamaCare and foreign policy.

With 11 times more money than McCain had in '08, facing one of the worse incumbents in recent history, debatable in American history, Romney was unable to convince the electorate that he was the better choice...

Very SAD. Thanks for that...