Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:37 AM
question everything (27,129 posts)
The GOP Turnout Myth
Op-ed WSJ by Kimberley Strassel
Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain's numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.
The temptation here is to conclude that Mr. Romney did better than Mr. McCain, just not well enough, while Mr. Obama did worse, just not badly enough. Yes, there is no question the GOP turnout effort could have been improved. Project ORCA, developed and run by the Romney campaign to refine its turnout efforts, was a dismal failure. And the GOP lagged behind the Obama campaign's sophisticated use of technology, in particular social media.
Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney's better turnout.
The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won't equal Mr. Obama's magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.
And that, for the record, was the GOP's real 2012 turnout disaster. Elections are about the candidate and the message, yes, but also about the ground game. Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney's failures and the party's immigration platform—that's fair enough. But equally important has been the party's mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn't campaign in those communities, doesn't register voters there, doesn't knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president's.
6 replies, 1985 views
The GOP Turnout Myth (Original post)
|question everything||Nov 2012||OP|
Response to aquart (Reply #1)
Fri Nov 23, 2012, 03:06 AM
BlueMTexpat (3,474 posts)
2. I found that phraseology strange too.
But I believe that what is meant generally is that the Prez's numbers were fewer in some places in 2012 than they were in 2008 while Romney's were greater in those same places than McCain's were in 2008. The vote-shedding refers to this situation, IMO, i.e., the 2008 status quo.
Where the Prez's numbers really blew the election out of the water in 2012 were in places where minorities had not been registered in the same numbers as in 2008. That is, that the attention by the Prez's campaign in getting minorities registered to vote in the first place and then actually campaigning and doing GOTV in the same areas (the whole ground game) resulted in NEW numbers of people voting FOR the President that more than compensated for any votes he may have lost elsewhere.
Of course, the GOP believed that their voter suppression efforts would prevent large numbers of these same newly registered voters from being able to vote at all. Thank heavens for the successful court challenges.
Response to question everything (Original post)
Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:59 PM
John2 (2,730 posts)
4. Even though
President Obama loss in North carolina, he exceeded the votes that he got in North Carolina in 2008.. He lost some white women in North Carolina. In 2008, he got 38 percent of that vote but dropped to only 30 percent. That was even lower than white men at 32 percent. He got 35 percent of the white vote in 2008, but only 31 percent this time. Some white women must have sold into Romney's rethoric in North Carolina. That is mostly who his appeal was to. The Republicans just need to dump the Southern Strategy period and talk to more minorities nationwide. Do they even campaign in these communities? That is their problem. These people aren't dumb either. They are not taliking to third World natives. They are talking to smart Americans.
Response to John2 (Reply #4)
Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:04 PM
JHB (20,660 posts)
6. True, but dumping the Southern Strategy risks costing them voters too...
...as the implacable foamers feel betrayed and break off turn to the Libertarians and other minor splinter parties. Meanwhile, any gains they may get from ending the SS will take a long time to develop: people won't believe they mean it until the prove it, and that may take a generation.