Update: I hear they may not have yet added in the FL vote tally….if so, what I said below may have to be adjusted some.
We kept hearing that the Republicans were enthused, would turn out in huge numbers, and that Obama voters would stay home, or even vote for Romney, and so the GOP had a good shot at taking the White House. It turns out that only one of the above actually happened in reality – lots of Democrats stayed home.
So why did Romney lose? Because also too many Republicans didn’t bother to go out and vote, the numbers suggest.
The final results are still not in, but it appears most are (ca. 90%), and they tell a sad story: too many Republican voters sat on their butts and thus gave this one away:
Obama 2008: 69,456,897 votes
Obama 2012: 59,000,000
McCain 2008: 59,934,814
Romney 2008: 57,000,000
Like I said, there are still more votes to be counted, and the GOP tally probably will surpass 08’s, though not by much, if at all. The numbers already suggest that enthusiasm was lacking.
All that talk about an “energized party” appears to have been lots of hot air.
The numbers also tell us just how valuable Palin was in energizing the GOP in 2008. Although people were tired of the GOP, she mobilized GOP voters – as many as what we saw yesterday. If Palin had not been the VP candidate in 2008 and had made her debut yesterday, we’d be saying “President-elect” Romney today.
I’m not taking anything away from Paul Ryan. But we have to admit that the ticket was a bit bland this time around.
The GOP really knows how to pick ’em. Is there a Ronald Reagan in sight for 2016?
6 responses to “Voter Turnout Appears To Be Less Than In 2008 – Republicans Were Not Enthused After All”
Hindsight is always 20/20. After 2008 was over, many said Sarah Palin was a bad choice. I think Paul Ryan was fine. Blaming him would be like praising Biden for Obama winning.
It won’t matter now. The game is over and America as I’ve known it for 50 years is history.
The country is a spiritual corpse, and the transition from apathy to dependency is complete. Next comes tyranny. Are you prepared?
“Update: I hear they may not have yet added in the FL vote tally….if so, what I said below may have to be adjusted some.”
Okay. Breitbart and Twitchy reported about long lines at the polling places. I already wondered whether Axelrod had an army of strategically placed shredders.
Well, probably he had anyway.
“Because also too many Republicans didn’t bother to go out and vote, the numbers suggest.”
I think that may be very poor phrasing. Consider this: I did not vote. Period. I am registered Republican, and I did not vote, but not because I “didn’t bother.” Far from it. It took considerable effort for me to not vote; many of my friends and relatives urged me to vote, but I did the difficult thing and refused to. Why? Ethics. My ethics would not let me. Romney is not fit to be President, no more than Obama, who also is not fit to be President. I took an oath to support the Constitution and neither candidate will do so. It is obvious that Obama will not; he has not. It is equally obvious that Romney will not. He did not when he was only a governor, and he has promised on the campaign trail that he will not do so as President. How can I say that? Here is an example: Romney said that he supports the provision of the NDAA that empowers the President to have the US military arbitrarily arrest, hold without charges, hold without trial and even to execute ANYONE solely on his command and decision. You love your mama, your wife, your brothers? Well, Romney (and Obama) claim that as President they can arrest or kill any of them — strictly because they as President decide to. They don’t want to be President. They want to be tyrants — and I for one will not support either.
Sure, sure, “Romney is the lesser of two evils.” I get it. I got it. I voted that way for decades and what has it gotten us? More evil. Seriously, even if you think I am crazy or simply mistaken, ask yourself this question: Is there ANYTHING that a Presidential candidate could support that would prevent you from voting for him, even if the other candidate was worse? In other words, are there some traits so reprehensible to ethics or Constitutional principles that you would simply not vote if both candidates had those traits? Would you have voted for Romney if both he and Obama were serial baby rapists, but Romney claimed that he would give you lower taxes? “Sure, I know that Romney is a baby raper, but Obama is worse. Obama will raise taxes!” Yes? No?
Neither Obama nor Romney do anything more than give lip service to supporting the Constitution. Instead they claim the right to murder. They are tyrants. Vote for either one. I won’t.
Agenda 21 is here…..what will Americans do when Obama accelerates its implementation.
Interesting read by sensible Democrats, on this matter anyway.