Quotes of the day

posted at 10:17 pm on November 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

That Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and a key swing vote in several toss-up states was well-known within the Romney campaign. That Republican opposition to immigration reform helped Democrats increase their appeal in the Hispanic community and take back the House in 2006 was also well established. Yet Romney’s team cultivated an unswerving belief that the torpid economy would sink Obama under its own weight and depress Latino support, even after the administration ordered temporary visas for Dream Act students.

Demographics—and Obama’s superior political machine—won the day. Republicans who have been sounding the alarm for years are wondering if Tuesday’s election will finally resonate as a clarion call.

“If we as Republicans had moved just a few percentage points of the Hispanic vote in states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia, it could have thrown the election to Romney,” said former Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, a Cuban-American and past chairman of the Republican National Committee who fought for sweeping immigration reform. “This is not a choice. It’s either extinction or survival.”

***

The president captured 48% of the Cuban-American vote in Florida—a record high for a Democrat, according to an exit poll by Bendixen & Amandi International, Mr. Obama’s Hispanic polling firm. Republican Mitt Romney received 52%…

Given his overwhelming support among Florida’s non-Cuban Hispanic voters, who make up a growing share of the electorate, Mr. Obama carried the state’s Latino vote overall by 61% to 39%, exceeding his margin in 2008 by seven percentage points. Together, both trends are accelerating a realignment of the state’s Latino vote, from once solidly Republican to now reliably Democratic, analysts say.

“The president has successfully picked the lock in Florida,” said Fernand Amandi, managing partner at the polling firm.

***

The conservative base is smaller than it has been in three decades, with its share falling to 35% while liberals edged up to 24%, a narrowing advantage further diminished by the fact that about a fifth of that conservative base consists of blacks and Latinos who still overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The Republican conservative base seems perilously close to shrinking to white southern evangelicals, senior white males, and upper income Protestants

To be sure, a better crafted campaign would have filled in Romney’s policy goals more convincingly than the ritualistic invocation of five point plans and generic references to cutting regulation and producing more domestic energy. But that failure is not just a marketing flaw on the part of Romney’s ad men: it is a symptom of a modern conservatism that seems spent and resistant to innovation on some days, purely oppositional and reactive on other days. And the weightiest part of the recent conservative agenda, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, was barely mentioned and its details only intermittently defended. (The details of Ryan’s budget had their share of political pitfalls, but the scant attention to it by the Romney campaign surely contributed to the impression that the Republican wish list was being kept deliberately shadowy.)

***

Each of the key groups in Obama’s coalition of the ascendant is growing in society—which means that they will provide an even greater advantage to Democrats over time unless Republicans start winning more of them. “When you have a younger generation with a different set of ideas, and a changing demographic in the country, there’s going to be a tipping point; and during that tipping point, the two sides are roughly at parity,” says Morley Winograd, a senior fellow at the Democratic advocacy group NDN and coauthor with Michael Hais of two books on the millennial generation. “But at some point, that parity goes away and the direction becomes very clear.… We think this coalition is not only ascendant but will be dominant.”…

After these results, the big question facing the GOP is whether it can improve its performance among minorities, especially Hispanics, without returning to George W. Bush’s support for immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for those living here illegally. That policy shift would face impassioned resistance from conservatives. “Looks like a brawl coming soon,” says longtime GOP strategist Mike Murphy. “The question is: Will the party base accept these facts, since they chose to ignore similar facts after Obama’s election four years ago?”…

“That 28 percent [minority-vote share of the electorate] will be 31 percent probably in 2016, and then it will be 34,” notes Matt Barreto, a founder of Latino Decisions, a polling firm that specializes in Hispanic voters. To win future elections, Republicans will need to either improve their minority performance or win even higher percentages of whites. “So it’s either going to get scarier in terms of those huge racial divides,” he says, “or the Republicans are going to have to sit up and say, ‘How can we cut into the Latino, African-American, and the Asian-American vote?’”

***

Maybe these people are convinced the larger GOP project can be saved simply by caving on just this one issue. That seems cracked. The bulk of the Hispanic electorate appears to instinctively vote Democratic, and not just because of immigration. (“[T]his is just a fairly liberal voting block.”) Maybe they can be wooed over to the Republican side over the course of decades. But by then there will be another wave of new, instinctively Democratic illegal immigrants (lured by the Boehner Amnesty) for Dems to appeal to. And the idea that the GOPs don’t have to change any of their other ideas if only they appease this one ethnic group (making up 10% of the electorate) is highly questionable, as David Frum has argued. … There were plenty of other reasons why Romney lost. (If he’d gotten McCain’s share of the Latino vote … he still would have lost.)…

A much better strategy would be to enact the enforcement measures (including a border fence and a system of employment checks), then wait a few years and see if they survive. If they do, sure, come up with some kind of amnesty. You could calmly pitch that plan to Latinos–it ends in the same place (amnesty). But that’s not the sort of sensible approach you will insist on if you are part of a stampede of panicked pols and consultants whose only goal is to pander to what they think Latinos want to make up for their shortcomings in other areas.

***

If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.

And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

***

To follow up on the question of whether Hispanics are held back from their natural Republican affinities by immigration-reform obstructionism, let’s not forget Obamacare. A Fox News Latino poll in September 2012 found that 62 percent of likely Latino voters backed President Obama’s handling of health care, including the Affordable Care Act. Only 25 percent of those voters wanted the act repealed. The Catholic Church’s strong opposition to the bill’s contraception mandate did not tip the Latino scales against it, dealing another blow to the myth of the “social values” Hispanic conservative. A Romney Spanish-language ad trumpeting Romney’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act showed that his strategists “don’t know what they are doing,” Latino pollster Matt Barreto told USA Today in August…

Out of sheer fatigue, I would almost be willing to support an E-Verify-preceded amnesty (starting with a DREAM Act that, unlike every extant version, disqualifies applicants with criminal records and requires serious educational attainment) in exchange for the elimination of chain migration and its replacement by a skills-based selection process. Congressional Democrats’ recent torpedoing of green cards for foreign Ph.D. science graduates, however, simply to preserve the “diversity” visa lottery shows how deep Democratic commitment to low-skilled immigration is. It would be risky to assume that they don’t know what they’re doing.

***

It is prudent and sensible to favor amnesty for the remaining non-violent, long-term illegal aliens after a fully articulated enforcement system is in place and functioning and proven. But that will require some time, not just to staff up and put the physical and IT infrastructure in place but also to overcome the years-long scorched-earth litigation campaign the ACLU and its comrades will launch to stop all enforcement initiatives. (Or do you think they’ll feel bound by whatever illusory deal their congressional allies are compelled to settle for?)…

The Left understands much better the point of mass immigration. See, for instance, the comments of Eliseo Medina, vice president of the SEIU and an honorary chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America: “[Immigrants] will solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. . . . We will create a governing coalition for the long term not just for an election cycle.”

Conservatives shouldn’t be helping them do this.

***

“This is a very, very dangerous area for Rubio if he has national aspirations,” said Roy Beck, head of the anti-immigration group Numbers USA. “You’ve had Republicans trying to do this in the past that really lost their status in the party once they did it.”…

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s elections, many Republicans believe they need to recalibrate and listen to Rubio. But while Rubio may be able to sway his Senate colleagues, his influence among House members is less certain.

“My gut is there are not too many Republicans who have been against comprehensive reform who will change positions,” said longtime pro-immigration activist Rick Swartz, who founded the National Immigration Forum. Reform “is easy to talk about but harder to get it done.”

***

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum charged Thursday that President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party held off on immigration reform so they could capitalize politically during the election.

“It did not get done, in my opinion, by this president because he wanted this as an issue,” Santorum said on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.” “I don’t believe the Democrats are at all sincere about doing anything and compromising with Republicans on immigration.”…

“They would rather have the issue and continue to drive…this wedge between races and creeds and classes or whatever else they want to divide America,” Santorum said of the Democratic approach to the immigration issue. “That’s unfortunate. Let’s see if Barack Obama, in a second term, is serious about solving problems or wants to perpetuate politics.”

***

On Feb. 11, 2011, the person who should have been the Republican nominee laconically warned conservatives about a prerequisite for persuading people to make painful adjustments to a rickety entitlement state. Said Indiana’s Gov. Mitch Daniels: “A more affirmative, ‘better angels’ approach to voters is really less an aesthetic than a practical one. With apologies for the banality, I submit that, as we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us, just a bit.” Romney was a diligent warrior. Next time, Republicans need a more likable one.

And one who tilts toward the libertarian side of the Republican Party’s fusion of social and laissez-faire conservatism. Most voters already favor less punitive immigration policies than the ones angrily advocated by clenched-fist Republicans unwilling to acknowledge that immigrating — risking uncertainty for personal and family betterment — is an entrepreneurial act. The speed with which civil unions and same-sex marriage have become debatable topics and even mainstream policies is astonishing. As is conservatives’ failure to recognize this: They need not endorse such policies, but neither need they despise those, such as young people, who favor them.

***

Via WaPo:

***

Amnesty for whoever is here. And it’s gonna be blanket, and it’s gonna be pretty quick. That’s where we’re headed. So I want to get in the game. I want to propose EIB amnesty. And I’ll agree to it. Amnesty for every illegal citizen who is here. There’s just one caveat. In exchange for having all of the laws that have been violated forgiven…

In exchange for blanket automatic citizenship without having to take the test, without having to learn the documents… (You’re here. You’ve been here a number of years so you’re a citizen. That’s where we’re headed.) One caveat: You can’t vote for 25 years. And let’s see how much support that idea gets. Let’s see if amnesty is what really is desired. Let’s see if it’s citizenship that all of these compassionate Democrats really have in mind.

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

He’s not advocating anything. He’s making a ridiculous offer to make a point – that these people are being used as a permanent voting bloc and without the vote they offer they’ll be quickly abandoned.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

He is advocating it. He said he was serious. How many times does he say he lives in literalville? So I can’t take him literally? Do you support his idea? If so, why are you in favor of taxation without representation?

Dante on November 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Haven’t seen a QOTD with less than 500 replies in a long time…

OmahaConservative on November 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM

The reason we didn’t do immigration reform during the brief five months (including August recess) when we had 60 Senators is because it was — for better or for worse — all health care, all the time that summer.

urban elitist on November 10, 2012 at 8:25 AM

They didn’t do immigration reform because the votes weren’t there. That’s why Harry Reid never introduced the crap-and-betrayed bill that passed the House and never went near card check. Too many vulnerable Dems refused to vote on those issues. And it was a smart move.

I’m frankly stunned how many Democrat Senators managed to survive their Obamacare and Porkulus votes with relative ease(although opponents like Achin’ certainly helped). But even Todd Achin’ would’ve knocked off McCasket had she cast yea votes on crap-and-betrayed and card check.

Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Dante: Rush’s idea is brilliant the way most of his ideas are. SO to spare you the “taxation w/o representation” angst — they don’t have to pay taxes for 25 years either. How’s that?

IdrilofGondolin on November 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

They didn’t do immigration reform because the votes weren’t there. That’s why Harry Reid never introduced the crap-and-betrayed bill that passed the House and never went near card check. Too many vulnerable Dems refused to vote on those issues. And it was a smart move.

I’m frankly stunned how many Democrat Senators managed to survive their Obamacare and Porkulus votes with relative ease(although opponents like Achin’ certainly helped). But even Todd Achin’ would’ve knocked off McCasket had she cast yea votes on crap-and-betrayed and card check.

Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

You are correct on cap-and-trade but the Republicans filibustered the Dream Act twice and vowed to do the same for any comprehensive reform.

urban elitist on November 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Dante: Rush’s idea is brilliant the way most of his ideas are. SO to spare you the “taxation w/o representation” angst — they don’t have to pay taxes for 25 years either. How’s that?

IdrilofGondolin on November 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I think Rush’s idea is foolish. Democrats and the news media would demagogue it and make it look like Republicans don’t believe some “citizens” should have the right to vote. It would cast the Republicans as being too tricky by half, and also as being demeaning to the disenfranchised poor. Then it would be outed as Rush’s idea and as a result would even be more widely hated.

It’s possible to imagine something worse, though, and that would be that Republicans and Democrats would agree on the plan and implement it. If that happened, 20 million new people would immediately demand benefits along with the right to bring relatives into the country. At the same time, these 20 million would insist on the right to full citizenship, and not one in five Americans at that point would deny it to them.

Burke on November 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

At least for the time being, most Hispanics are lower income folks who receive government handouts. Thus, regardless of the GOP’s stance on immigration, a GOP candidate isn’t going to attract a numeric majority of Hispanic votes and can’t reasonably expect to.

What I think we need to do is adopt a three-prong approach to Hispanics:

1) Offer immigration reform that makes us appear compassionate to Hispanics’ legitimate beefs about our legal immigration system while simultaneously limiting future immigration.

2) Push increased trade with Mexico and other Latin American countries, which benefits everyone’s economy and thereby reduces Hispanics’ desire to move to the US. (Most Hispanic immigration is driven by the need for work, not a yearning for freedom like what drove European immigration).

3) Try to find some way to stop the Democrats from eliminating Hispancs’ work ethic and making them into a group of people addicted to welfare. Our long term survival depends on Hispanics rising to the middle class.

Outlander on November 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I’m quoting from another HA member on another thread. But it is worth re-posting.

“Let’s examine the claim, then. Of the counties Obama won:

relatively same turnout: Allegheny, Delaware, Lackawanna
1 point lower: Erie
2 points lower: Dauphin, Luzerne, Monroe
3 points lower: Montgomery, Northampton
4 points lower: Bucks, Lehigh
Moreover, Obama LOST Chester County if the current result holds.

The only place Obama got a higher percentage over 2008 was in Philadelphia County, where you may recall that GOP poll inspectors were illegally removed from several locations, which then had an odd surge in turnout (over 90% in a city that averaged a 60% turnout) and went as high as 99.5% for Obama.”
The Schaef on November 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

The GOP needs to begin confronting the voter fraud that is rampant within the Democrat party or it soon won’t matter who we run they will lose.
The Democrats have no problem with accusing the Republicans of voter fraud. If the lies work so well how much more powerful is the truth? Republicans just sit there on their hands while the Democrat party accuses them of everything from racism to murder. I have no understanding of this.. but it has got to stop!

For crying out loud.. the Republican party was birthed as the anti-slavery party but the Democrats have so successfully manipulated the past that they have turned history upside down! Even Lincoln.. the first Republican President is being co-opted by the Democrats that I honestly believe some people in the GOP would be embarrassed to state that Lincoln was not a Democrat!

Why is this really happening? Because good men do nothing! It is as simple as that! Good men sit there and do nothing. Just like our glorious Speaker of the House! Surrender. Sit and warm the chair. Don’t take any risks because what’s the point and all the while our Republic slips away from us.

Good men who do nothing are as guilty as the evil men who steal, lie and cheat.

JellyToast on November 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I think Charles K. is right about amnesty, at least as it applied to Mitt Romney. Had Romney done just a little bit better — perhaps as well as 45% of the Latino vote — he might have flipped enough states to win the election. Romney also showed poorly with Asians, who might also have factored immigration into their voting decisions. Asians, just as much as Latinos, are natural Republicans.

I was concerned for Romney’s sake in the primaries when he ran too far to the right on immigration. The few votes it cost him were enough to flip the election and electoral college to Obama. Romney already had the etch-a-sketch label. He should have been prepared to take one more hit on this early in the spring or summer by amending his stance on immigration and campaigning hard for Latino and Asian votes.

The stunning thing is Romney carrying 60% of the white vote, the largest share since Bush in 1988. Obama got the lowest share since Clinton in 1992 in a three-way race. The Romney campaign misread the electorate. The same voting percentages up through about 2000 would have produced a Romney victory.

Ultimately, Obama was (also) LUCKY. Hurricane Sandy and . . . Several of the swing states had better economic indicators than the nation-at-large due to having Republicans in charge, which gave Romney a hard time campaigning on his economic message in those states.

The Bringer on November 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Amnesty can’t be the reason so many Latinos turned out for the Won since he had 4 years after promising them amnesty and didn’t deliver. Rush is right about Santa but that’s got to be just another component. Doing the nitty gritty GOTV on election day and the work leading up to that is the reason for Zero’s turnout.

Kissmygrits on November 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I stayed away from HA last night to do some quiet reflection on what went right – and wrong – with the Republican’s campaign.

One thought that occurred to me is that maybe, it went on too long.

Almost 2 years of non-stop primary and election talk 24/7 may have burned non-political junkies out so much they just started tuning it out.

Doesn’t excuse their not showing up at the polls, but it might be something to consider.

Flora Duh on November 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM

And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

It’s all about free benefits….. Free stuff!
Free $$$.
Free education.
Free healthcare.
Low-cost housing.
Social security. (Though, w/out the taxes paid into SS by the only rapidly growing population (Hispanics/Latinos) in the US, SS might not survive at all – damn 60s baby boomers.)

I guess when the Hezbollah & Al Qaida cells here in the US become legal US citizens… and we see another terrorist attack on US soil, I suppose the Southern Poverty Law Center will still bitch about “home-grown”- terrorists as the biggest terrorist threat.

I do agree that amnesty will happen (not my choice), but also believe it should happen with a price including no voting rights for a probationary period of time, as well as payment of additional taxes for a probationary period of time, and must exclude those who broke any other laws besides crossing the border (this group still gets deported)… Otherwise, we might as well simply reinstate voting rights for felons…
Oh wait, I forgot – the liberals are already working on the felon voting angle…

Danny on November 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Maybe you’re right.
I just think those folks are too far gone.
I can’t tell you how frustrating it’s been to me, conversing with acquaintences before the election. Their dumb smiles, as I tried to explain what was happening…

People are really asking for it.

RedCrow on November 10, 2012 at 2:40 AM

And I’m going to laugh very sardonically at my liberal co-workers, some of them very smug, when our employer (privately owned, non-union) dumps our health coverage and/or cuts us full-timers back to 30-hour weeks. That last item was what my boss was worried about as the election returns were coming in. I took the time to explain a little bit about the taxes that will be coming and the fact that we will have to indicate on our tax returns whether or not we have health insurance and he looked questioningly at me. He’d not heard of it. I thought about emailing him some articles about it, but he’s the type that likes info in very small doses, so I’m going to have to think about how to present it to him.

Then again, I may just let him find out on his own. He doesn’t follow politics much and he’s one of many who still thinks that what the media says is the “official” version. There’s no discernment, no questioning, no realization that maybe, just maybe, the media has a vested interest in not telling the truth, which we all know, but people like him don’t.

PatriotGal2257 on November 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Flora Duh on November 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Agreed, I just took a close look at Broward counties demographics, and there’s just no way we took 99% there, it’s simply a statistical impossibility. The county contains large numbers of demographics that Romney carried nationally. It’s quite possibly that these demographics would vote considerably more liberally in a blue county, but they wouldn’t vote 99% regardless of where they lived.

Not sure about the election as a whole, but I’m convinced that Florida at least was stolen. As close as it was, it wouldn’t have been very difficult.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Flora Duh on November 10, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Agreed, I just took a close look at Broward counties demographics, and there’s just no way we took 99% there, it’s simply a statistical impossibility. The county contains large numbers of demographics that Romney carried nationally. It’s quite possibly that these demographics would vote considerably more liberally in a blue county, but they wouldn’t vote 99% regardless of where they lived.

Not sure about the election as a whole, but I’m convinced that Florida at least was stolen. As close as it was, it wouldn’t have been very difficult.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM

NO QUESTION ELECTION STOLEN BUT ELECTORAL COLLEGE WON’T BE CERTIFIED UNTIL DEC. 20. IF ANY SENATOR CHALLENGES RESULTS THERE HAS TOBE A HEARING. START BURNING UP THE PHONELINES, FAX MACHINES, EMAILS & IN PERSON MEETINGS/PROTESTS. NOT TOLATE TO HAVE THE SOURCE CODES EXAMINED FOR TAMPERING. OR SIT BACK & LET IT CONTINUE WHILE COMPLAINING ONLINE TO… OTHER UNHAPPY PEOPLE WITH NO MORE POWERTHAN ANY ONE OF US. COLLECTIVE POWER WORKS. CONVERGE ON YOUR U.S. LEGISLATORS.
In SWORN TESTIMONY before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, computer programmer, Clint Curtiss testifies as tohow & by whom he was asked to write code that could change vote toals in an instant. At the 4:15 mark he shows how simple the “flip” Is. Just 3 clicks & vote totals switch between opposing candidates.

NightmareOnKStreet on November 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Mitt didn’t do what it takes to win. He got 60% of the white vote, but he could have easily go ~ 65% of the white vote if he had vocally and via ads played up the real threat from illegal immigration. With amnesty and coming open borders a Hispanic controlled electorate would push us toward a free influx of Mexicans as we lose our national integrity, and toward wealth taxes and truly redistributive socialism. Mitt wouldn’t talk about the threat of illegal immigration, yet Mitt’s low key approach on immigration didn’t gain a single Hispanic vote as the amnesty issue was well known in the Hispanic community, it just unfortunately wasn’t a big deal among whites, thanks to Mitt running away from the issue!

Get the white vote up! That’s our hope. Not amnesty that would dramatically the number of Dem voting Hispanics. Again, we could have gotten the white vote up this time if we had stressed the immigration threat.

anotherJoe on November 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

America is no longer a “center-right” nation. We have moved left of where we were (I never understand center-right, center is center, where the center is). We want safety hammocks to save our lazy buttocks. That is just the way it is. We can accept that and act accordingly or we can stubbornly deny the facts and keep losing to politicians even further on the left.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Had Romney done just a little bit better — perhaps as well as 45% of the Latino vote

The Bringer on November 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You are incorrect. If Romney had beaten Obama by 60-40 with the Hispanic vote he would have still lost. Do not believe the Charles K’s of the world. They are lying to you.

KMav on November 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

KMav on November 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

What Mitt needed was for more whites to show up. They were out there and they told pollsters he was their man. I’m not talking about the base, who were motivated enough to vote. I’m talking about the ignorant slugs who couldn’t be bothered to who up at the polls.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

*show* up at the polls.

MJBrutus on November 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

“Let’s examine the claim, then. Of the counties Obama won:

relatively same turnout: Allegheny, Delaware, Lackawanna
1 point lower: Erie
2 points lower: Dauphin, Luzerne, Monroe
3 points lower: Montgomery, Northampton
4 points lower: Bucks, Lehigh
Moreover, Obama LOST Chester County if the current result holds.

The only place Obama got a higher percentage over 2008 was in Philadelphia County, where you may recall that GOP poll inspectors were illegally removed from several locations, which then had an odd surge in turnout (over 90% in a city that averaged a 60% turnout) and went as high as 99.5% for Obama.”
The Schaef on November 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM

I thought I’d do a little experiment, so I found the report of all the wards in Philadelphia which threw out all the GOP election inspectors and went to the Philadelphia Co. election results site to see if they had the data for each ward and their vote totals. Our county does this, as I was easily able to see my own ward and precinct vote totals in the hours after the polls closed. I was going to put together a spreadsheet for my own edification from the data.

Well, lo and behold, the problem is that there is no listing for the 2012 General Election in the pull-down menu. They have the raw data, but the most recent is for the 2012 Primary. Gee, so maybe I’d have to petition the court to see them, because obviously, someone’s holding out posting any of the totals for the county. If they’re not hiding something, then I bet it would all be there for everyone to see.

PatriotGal2257 on November 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6