About a month before the election I predicted a Romney landslide–if the election was fair.
I detailed a handful of reasons for why I believed that would be the case. In particular, I felt the 2010 midterm elections and the statewide support for the GOP candidates even in locales such as Wisconsin, which not only voted for Governor Walker and Supreme Court justice David Prosser, but re-elected Walker in his recall election, which you may remember was only just this last summer. And that’s in Wisconsin!
The results of this election were perplexing to me. Obama won but the House remained firmly in the hands of Republicans. In order for this to have happened, the very people who voted against Romney voted for their Republican congressman. To make the point a little plainer, the people who voted for Obama still voted for their Republican congressman. This would have had to have happened in the millions. Who does this?
Is a liberal minded entitlement claimer really want to support Obama and simultaneously people who would oppose him? Yet for the outcome of the election to have turned out the way it did, precisely such a thing needed to happen.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that voter fraud is a very plausible explanation. With all of the Soros backed secretary of states and the wide open avenue for tampering with paperless electronic voting machines, combined with the already well known fact that Acorn-style vote manipulation is the Democratic modus operandi, along with the liberal propensity for bringing in illegal aliens with the sole purpose of creating anchor babies who will grow up to vote Liberal (babies born under Reagan’s amnesty program applying to parents who entered illegally prior to 1982 would be thirty years old today), the plausibility factor goes through the roof. And then, there are reports like this one, where Obama won the same share of votes ‘voluntarily’ cast that Saddam Hussein did– 99%. Oh really.
But I had some mental reservations. If you’re going to steal an election, even if you are evil scoundrels like we know most of the top Democrats to be, would you really be so stupid as to only steal the presidential election, and not the rest? A Democrat sweep would be believable, since, after all, that’s what we had in 2008. Perhaps it was not stupidity, but inability; maybe there were pragmatic reasons that prevented such a manipulation. Such considerations are firmly in the realm of the theoretical. Unless there is a whistle blower, we’d never find evidence of anything as far reaching as this. Anyone who even has an inclination towards whistle-blowing has probably ‘already been taken care of.’ At any rate, this just didn’t add up.
Then I observed that here in Wisconsin–In Wisconsin!–the Republicans regained their control of the Senate and now control every branch–house, senate, governor, judiciary. And yet… and yet… Tommy Thompson lost to the radical liberal homosexual Tammy Baldwin. This, again, after Walker’s decisive victory only as recent as this summer.
Finally, I was intrigued by the popular vote results. In 2012, we have Obama with about 61,170,405 and Romney with about 58,163,977. But look at what it was in 2008: Obama= 69,456,897 | McCain= 59,934,814.
There are two aspects that I just found remarkable with these figures. First of all, Obama has received 7,000,000 fewer votes than he received in 2008. Where did these Obama supporters go? To Romney? Look again! At present count, Romney has received about 2,000,000 fewer votes than McCain did!
There are 9,000,000 votes left on the table compared to 2008. Both sides of the aisle received fewer votes. Inexplicably–especially taking into account the massive tide change in 2010–Romney received even fewer votes than McCain.
This got me thinking.
The 2010 midterms had a very respectable turnout of its own, and the Republicans won by a margin of about 5,000,000 votes. As far as mid-terms go, it was 2,000,000 more than the turn out in 2006 and 8,000,000 more than in 2002! As of this writing, the GOP lost the congressional popular vote in the 2012 election, while keeping control of the House, but the loss was just by a hair, 53,822,442 to the Dem’s 54,301,095.
I’m not too interested in the Dem’s victory there, per se. After all, we expect them to win the high density urban centers. That’s why we have checks and balances such as the electoral college and the senate. But what I was interested was in the fact that in this case, the Republican vote was higher than in 2008. In 2008, GOP candidates received 51,952,981 votes and this year it was 53,822,442. That’s a swing in the Republican favor of almost 2,000,000 votes… nearly identical to the 2,000,000 less against the Republicans that Romney received. Coincidence?
From this we may suppose that about 2,000,000 GOP-minded individuals went to the ballot box, cast a vote for their local GOP guy, and then cast no vote at all on the presidential ticket.
This 2 million swing puts Romney at an effective tie with Obama.
In 2008, there were many conservatives who were not pleased with the selection of McCain as their candidate. The choice of Palin was encouraging, to them, but McCain’s subsequent decision to vote for the ‘stimulus’ and TARP was a real downer. There was open conversation amongst conservatives about not casting a vote for McCain. There was some discussion about sending the GOP a message that they wouldn’t tolerate such candidates in the future. Then the tea party happened, and there was some notion that the GOP had finally got the message. The result was a commanding landslide by the Republicans all across the country, not just in the House and Senate, but in governor’s races, state races, and local races.
Then, ‘moderate’ Romney was chosen to be the nominee in 2012.
New hypothesis: The loss by McCain and the GOP 2010 midterm victories were a message to the GOP and the 2012 election is a re-statement of that same message: we will vote for genuine conservative candidates and support them materially, but we will no longer support candidates who struggle to distinguish themselves from the ones they are running against. They will not hold their nose and vote for the GOP moderate. They’re just not going to do it. But, as the 2012 House turnout shows, they will still vote for the GOP conservative.
If I’m right, the election was (largely) fair, and a message was sent, but it was not that the GOP needs to reach out to women, hispanics, and the youth. It needs to reach out to the conservatives!
In fact, ‘reaching’ out to these subgroups in a manner that further makes GOP candidates indistinguishable from Liberals they are running against, and will force a further withdrawal of support for the GOP and its candidates. The Tea Party has spoken: they’re not going to take it any more, and they are NOT going to support RINOs. Period.
This hypothesis does need some testing before it can be fully embraced. For example, I think you’d have to do some analysis of a large number of individual elections. If, for example, we see many House candidates receiving significantly more votes than Romney received in the same areas, even if those areas still ‘went’ for Romney, the discrepancy could clearly account for the aggregate state results not being enough to provide for a Romney victory, even if the local candidates win.
I also wonder about the value of exit polling in such issues. When I get phone calls for polling, I always decline. I’ve never met an exit poller, but it I did, I would decline to participate. I suspect many conservatives are similar. That is, they are not going to disclose to someone anything, let alone the fact that they did not vote for Romney but they did vote GOP elsewhere. Do we have anyway to ascertain how many people voted GOP but chose not to vote for Romney?
I think I have talked myself into accepting this hypothesis, but I suppose the ‘powers that be’ will want to ground themselves in some hard data. But perhaps they don’t care, and we already know they don’t care, and that’s how Romney became our candidate.