Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Give Romney 70% of Hispanic Vote and He Still Loses

2013-05-04

In 2012, President Obama famously won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote to Mitt Romney's 27 percent. If all other factors remained the same, how large a percentage of the Hispanic vote would Romney have had to win to capture the White House?

But what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)

The most serious of those problems was that Romney was not able to connect with white voters who were so turned off by the campaign that they abandoned the GOP and in many cases stayed away from the polls altogether. Recent reports suggest as many as 5 million white voters simply stayed home on Election Day. If they had voted at the same rate they did in 2004, even with the demographic changes since then, Romney would have won.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#4 ....a guy who indistinguishable from Champ on so many issues. Posted by: Titus Ulans4144

Your logic fails me Titus. I blame the "free stuff".

Posted by: Besoeker 2013-05-04 13:09

#3 Lots of fraud. No question. But Champ still got lower counts than he did in 2008. Romney couldn't turn out his own voters, mostly because they weren't his. They were Republican / Conservatives, and they were not excited about a guy who indistinguishable from Champ on so many issues.

Posted by: Titus Ulans4144 2013-05-04 12:59

#2 I think Romney would have won (probably did, given an honest vote count) once he tromped B.O. in the first debate. Remember, he held up Champ's suit and shook it real hard and and the entire country saw that it was empty. But after that Willard fell back into safe mode. Rather than tearing him up again in the last two debates he recited his talking points and bored the people who were waiting to jump up and down and cheer.

Had he done that, and he has the intelligence to do it, the enthusiasm would have carried through to overcome the 115 percent turnout in urban areas; the unusually large turnouts in the counties, made up of people we've never seen before or will again until next election; the unceasing stream of lies and half-truths saturating Florida especially, probably all the swing state; and his hilarious claim to have somehow created X million jobs in the course of his administration while unemployment somehow remained at the very same level it had been when he started.

Posted by: Fred 2013-05-04 11:35

#1 You know, maybe, if you put the conservative at the head of the ticket rather than as an after thought to appease your base outside of the Beltway, you might actually attract far more of your base.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-05-04 11:19

00:00