Green Room

How many tea-party supporters voted for Obama?

posted at 1:05 pm on November 10, 2012 by

A footnote from the national exit poll that I missed earlier this week. Note to the 11 percent: You’re doing it wrong.

Reuters/Ipsos conducted its own exit poll, based on a massive sample of 40,000 people, and got basically the same result — 12 percent of those who “identify strongly” with the tea party pulled the lever for four more years.

One other detail from the Reuters poll, possibly related, possibly not:

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

That squares with Sean Trende’s theory that lots of working-class white voters who were otherwise gettable ended up staying home due to alienation from Romney. A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

Recently in the Green Room:

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 2 3

“Ground game”, i.e. Electoral fraud.

S. D. on November 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM

There was a lot of cognitive dissonance to the election results. How could the country have re-elected the community organizer from the Southside of Chicago?

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Because he won the election the community organizer way — send out a bunch of campaign workers to personally mislead uninformed non-voters into voting for him. The country didn’t want Obama, but Obama picked the electorate. Call it “free-form Gerrymandering”.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2012 at 9:23 AM

True. And coming from Chicago’s South Side myself, a place chock-a-block full of community organizers, David Axelrod is the best one I’ve ever seen (sorry, Mr. O)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM

No…I don’t have the answer…and the large socon contingent here probably will continue to blame “moderate Mitt” for the loss…denying the sea change in both demographics and BELIEFS that are evident from the re-election of the most un-American and incompetent Prez in our history.

camaraderie

You do know Murdock, the evil abortion hating republican in Indiana lost to a pro-life democrat right?

Don’t believe the hype. In fact, you undermine your own argument. I don’t recall moderate Mitt ever even bringing up anything having to do with social conservatism, except perhaps in passing, and yet he still lost. What do we have to do next time, moderate some more and try to get Hillary to be our nominee? She seems pretty flexible on social issues.

Here’s a thought…instead snap judgments and hyperbolic anti-socon rants as an excuse, consider this….maybe voters just didn’t like the guy.

xblade on November 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I wonder what percent of those 11%-ers who’re doing it wrong are simply vindictive Ron Paul-ites giving the finger to the Republican establishment??

It could happen…

locomotivebreath1901 on November 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

How many tea-party supporters voted for Obama?

…and to the Evangelicals and others that stayed at home…(coming from an Independent Tea Party type)..may you BURN IN HE11 !

KOOLAID2 on November 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Don’t believe the hype. In fact, you undermine your own argument. I don’t recall moderate Mitt ever even bringing up anything having to do with social conservatism, except perhaps in passing, and yet he still lost. What do we have to do next time, moderate some more and try to get Hillary to be our nominee? She seems pretty flexible on social issues.

Here’s a thought…instead snap judgments and hyperbolic anti-socon rants as an excuse, consider this….maybe voters just didn’t like the guy.

xblade on November 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM

You are a slow learner. The Democrats used the idiocy of Akin and Mourdock to paint Romney and the Republicans as anti-female.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Those on the right who stayed home to punish the party for picking moderate (in reality self-sacrificing) Mitt think the party will move to the right to accommodate them. They are both unreliable and delusional.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Dear God, some people are too stupid to vote.

dukecitygirl on November 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Those on the right who stayed home to punish the party for picking moderate (in reality self-sacrificing) Mitt think the party will move to the right to accommodate them. They are both unreliable and delusional.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Those in the center that think the party can stay in the center or move left to accommodate them and win a national election are both stupid and delusional. Either the party moves right or the GOP is done as a antional party. We already have one leftist party in america having two isn’t a choice. And the voters who stayed home made that point loud and clear. Of cousre the left leaning in the gOP don’t want to hear it but it is there. You can not win your base if you move to the left. The moderates are not enough in and of themselves to win an election and the hope and prayers of the left leaning GOPe to find a new base were once again proven to be figments of their immagination.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You are a slow learner. The Democrats used the idiocy of Akin and Mourdock to paint Romney and the Republicans as anti-female.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM

so? Mitt lost the election because millions of voters sat home. Of those that showed up Mitt lost the female vote. Again so what? If Mitt would have drove his base to the polls it wouldn’t have mattered. Elections are won by getting more of your people to the polls then their people. Mitt failed to do so for many reasons and it had nothing to do with some stupid senaae races in IN or MO. Mitt surpressed the vote by his actions and his inability to fire up his base. Hell, I seriously doubt Mitt even had any understanding of who his base was so that he could fire them up.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I wonder what percent of those 11%-ers who’re doing it wrong are simply vindictive Ron Paul-ites giving the finger to the Republican establishment??

It could happen…

locomotivebreath1901 on November 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

It could be but then the question has to be asked why were they in a vindictive type of mood. Why didn’t Mitt the candidate reach out to those right leaning Ron Paul supporters and bring them into his tent instead of dissing their candidate and freezing him out of the party? So who is wrong? Those that voted for Obama out of revenge or the candidate who’s actions put them in desire for revenge in the first place.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Because you’re mad at the result or because there might not be another election?

Alberta_Patriot on November 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I may never vote straight ticket GOP again because I can clearly see that going with the Party ChoiceTM is not a recipe for success. The party does not know what a majority of Americans want right now. I think the crony capitalism argument and a more populist approach would have gone over well this election season. The Party ChoiceTM had to be boring, competent, above all not scary. That choice lost. We aren’t going to listen to you next time.

alwaysfiredup on November 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I do think Akin’s comments lost his election, many downballot races in Missouri, and fed into the nation’s anti-woman men. It is entirely possible, although I haven’t seen a breakdown, that more than 50% of those 3 mil who sat at home were women who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Republicans this year, would never vote Democrat, and just didn’t vote.

alwaysfiredup on November 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I don’t recall moderate Mitt ever even bringing up anything having to do with social conservatism, except perhaps in passing, and yet he still lost. What do we have to do next time, moderate some more and try to get Hillary to be our nominee? She seems pretty flexible on social issues.

Here’s a thought…instead snap judgments and hyperbolic anti-socon rants as an excuse, consider this….maybe voters just didn’t like the guy.

xblade on November 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM

and yet he still lost? Maybe that was why he lost.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

alwaysfiredup on November 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

anything is possible. But I highly doubt it. The VP pick in most elections doesn’t even move the dials come election time.let alone some senate election in flyover country. Mitt even disavowed the comments and ran more to the center on abortion after them. Adkin Murdock Cruz Allen these were all sideshow events to the main fight. It’s hard to vote for a liberal like Mitt after voting all your life against liberalism. Mitt and his record were IMO just a bridge too far for millions of Reagan conservatives.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM

One of the reasons Romney lost is that he had only 7 months to organize a campaign against an incumbent president who had the unqualified support of 90% of the media, academia and the entertainment industry and whose campaign had been organizing for 5 years. Sarah Palin called for a brokered convention – which would have left the nominee with 2 months to do what couldn’t be done in 7 months.

Palin’s supporters think the party will now move to the right to win their support. In fact the party will move where the votes are – to the left. A base which does not show up is not a base. It is a sink hole.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Mitt and his record were IMO just a bridge too far for millions of Reagan conservatives. unseen on November 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM

A bridge too far!! So bitter that Mitt was nominated instead of their heroine (who didn’t run) that they stayed home and ensured Obama’s re-election. Stupid beyond belief. As stupid as a 2 month campaign.

And Mitt would have done a better job with the deficit than Reagan.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I think it’s time to declare war on liberals. No, not that physical stuff, but a genuine idea war. Liberals can not win a war of ideas. They won this election by lying about Romney, lying about the tea party, and lying about Republican ideas. They never said we want the EPA to take coal off the market and force electricity prices to go so high that solar energy will be an alternative. No, they said Republicans want dirty air and water.

In my opinion, they can only get away with something like that if they have a MSM willing to allow it and, in some case, collude with them. The MSM, by allowing the Democrats to completely trash a man, who is probably one of the most decent men to run for office, has lowered the level of our political discourse so, without this war, it may never get back to normal.

How do we fight it? It’s actually a lot simpler than you might think. It would take someone like the Koch Brothers, who the MSM and Democrats completely trashed, to pull together with people who think like them and pull all of their advertising from the MSM, every single bit of it (and I do believe it’s quite a bit). Then, review all of their charitable donations and cut all of them by 50%. Since the press never recognizes just how much they do that’s positive, let them figure it out this way. Then vow to keep this boycott on until 2 things happen, first the MSM starts showing it’s not Pravda and Izvestia and starts asking the Democrats tough questions. It will be pretty easy to figure out. Secondly, leave the boycott on until the Democratic Party and the President apologize for their treatment of businessmen, the tea party, and the Republican Party, in a full page ad in the New York Post, Washington Examiner and the NY Times, acknowledge their divisiveness was inappropriate and vow to change.

Finally, pull all their donated funds from any union activity they give them to, because the unions participated in this election full bore, and are some of the leaders in trashing the Koch Brothers, even though some of Koch’s plants are unionized and they treat their employees quite fairly.

This isn’t about the Democrats winning, it’s about how they won and it has to be stopped because the alternative is both parties playing the same game and I really fear what happens to our country of that happens. I figure it will take about a year.

bflat879 on November 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

A bridge too far!! So bitter that Mitt was nominated instead of their heroine (who didn’t run) that they stayed home and ensured Obama’s re-election. Stupid beyond belief. As stupid as a 2 month campaign.

And Mitt would have done a better job with the deficit than Reagan.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Guys like you kill me…so sure of yourself when you are the one that can’t see the long term result. You are GOP leftist enablers….you are the GOP is “too big to fail” crowd…you are the fools that will give us the worthless England style so-called conservatives. To what end? Two parties who do not fight over how much taxpayer money to hand out, but how much.

You want to keep playing the joke of a political game go for it, but don’t kid yourself that you are actually accomplishing anything meaningful.

ClassicCon on November 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM

ClassicCon on November 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Having rejected Romney you will now pay higher taxes.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I’m not surprised. Take any slice you want of the electorate on any issue, and 5-10% will prove to be complete idiots.

For example, I remember a Gallup poll on gun control many years ago where 6% of the handgun owners favored banning ownership of handguns.

kd6rxl on November 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

And Mitt would have done a better job with the deficit than Reagan.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Bitter? not at all. We told you there was no way in hell Mitt would win you Mittbots thought you knew a new way the same way as McCain and dole but you all would do it better. It is the same groupthink for the socialists when their plans fall apart. they always blame something else or someone else on their failure. Mitt was a disaster of a nominee yet you want to blame the people who sat home instead. Here is a thought if you want to win elections instead of doing over and over again what isn’t working, do what has work. Do what is needed to get those people who sat home to get out and vote. Give them reasons to flood the ballot booth. Don’t give them boring give them a vision for a better future not more of the same just under different management. But I doubt you want to win if that means you end up with a conservative instead of a marxist.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Having rejected Romney you will now pay higher taxes.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I would have gave you 10-1 odds that Mitt would have did a Bush and raised taxes to get some resolution passed by the Senate to avoid the fiscal cliff.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

This isn’t about the Democrats winning, it’s about how they won and it has to be stopped because the alternative is both parties playing the same game and I really fear what happens to our country of that happens. I figure it will take about a year.

bflat879 on November 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Where you sleeping since 2008. what the MSM and dems did to Mitt was lightweght stuff compared to how they trashed and tried to destory the tea party and Gov Palin. The only way to beat them at this game is to win elections by landslides like 2010 and the only way to do that is give the power back to the people. I.e give them a reason to go to the polls.

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

…Palin was my choice and still would be in ’16…Mitt wasn’t even my third or fourth choice…but he was MY choice over JugEars…he is a good man!… if I run into Palin people that did not vote for Mitt…you have no idea how many times I will use the word “fluke” in their face!…even if it is a man of the cloth I talk too!
She’s my girl…but this is my fluken country!

KOOLAID2 on November 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

…Palin was my choice and still would be in ’16…Mitt wasn’t even my third or fourth choice…but he was MY choice over JugEars…he is a good man!… if I run into Palin people that did not vote for Mitt…you have no idea how many times I will use the word “fluke” in their face!…even if it is a man of the cloth I talk too!
She’s my girl…but this is my fluken country!

KOOLAID2 on November 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Same here. I grudgingly voted for Mitt, and I think most Palin supporters did. Romney wasn’t the strongest candidate, and he had a lot of advisors who seemed to be in it just for the money.

idesign on November 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

If you want conservative candidates to win the primaries, teach them to communicate their ideas better and not to fall into every liberal trap, so that they don’t come across as sex-obsessed totalitarians.

At the moment conservatives don’t have one candidate who can talk about his/her ideas coherently. That’s the main reason they lose.

Gelsomina on November 11, 2012 at 8:01 PM

One of the reasons Romney lost is that he had only 7 months to organize a campaign against an incumbent president who had the unqualified support of 90% of the media, academia and the entertainment industry and whose campaign had been organizing for 5 years. Sarah Palin called for a brokered convention – which would have left the nominee with 2 months to do what couldn’t be done in 7 months.

Palin’s supporters think the party will now move to the right to win their support. In fact the party will move where the votes are – to the left. A base which does not show up is not a base. It is a sink hole.

Basilsbest on November 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Hilarious. Sorry, pal. Can’t lay this one on Palin. Romney had been runing for president for 6 friggin’ years. If he hadn’t gotten by January, he was never going to get it.

ddrintn on November 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Hilarious. Sorry, pal. Can’t lay this one on Palin. Romney had been runing for president for 6 friggin’ years. If he hadn’t gotten by January, he was never going to get it.ddrintn on November 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Mitt ran for the presidency for 7 months, but you know that, don’t you twit. It’s not surprising that you pretend not to be able to distinguish between the nomination and the presidency.

There’s nothing hilarious about Palin’s clueless opinion that the GOP nominee could organize and run a campaign in 2 months. Anyone who takes her seriously after she promoted a brokered convention is pathetic.

Basilsbest on November 12, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3