I was looking at the vote totals and I'm shocked to see that Romney recieved almost 2.5M less votes than John McCain did in 2008. 

President Obama recieved only 250,000 more votes in 2012 than McCain did in 2008.  I believe that at least 250,000 people voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012 which means that if every single McCain voter had cast a vote for Romney - that Mitt would have won the popular vote.

All I heard about coming into the election was how enthusiastic Republicans were and how motivated they were to vote - but then Romney got 2.5M less votes than McCain?

Any guesses as to why? 

My only theory is that there are not as many partisans as you would think.  Everyone who was so enthusiastic to vote against Obama in 2012 was just as enthusiastic to vote against him in 2008.  A whole lot of people in the middle apparently decided to sit this one out. 

Rallying the base seems futile since they are on your side anyway and are very likely to vote. 

I think it debunks the conservative theory that Republicans need to nominate somebody more conservative to win.  Romney ran to the right of what McCAin did 4 years ago and he ended up with 2.5M less votes while running against a president who should have been vulnerable.

While we're at it, what happened to the large Catholic vote that was going to turn out and support Romney in far greater numbers than those who supported McCain?

In 2008, Catholics accounted for 27% of the electorate, and favored Obama 54-45%.

This year, the percentage of Catholic voters dropped to 25%, and favored Obama 50-48%.

In other words, Catholic voters this year were a smaller percentage of a smaller electorate.

I never had any faith in the Catholic vote. Over half of people who call themselves Catholic do not follow church doctrine. They could care less if they vote for someone who supports the killing of a baby in the womb. They will only find out how wrong they were when they meet their own deaths.

As for the enthusiasm, it was there for those of us who wanted Romney to win. The republicans could not over come the minority vote. Blacks once again turned out over the 90% range. Hispanics over 75% and about the same for Asian voters. White voters went 59% for Romney. and 39% for Obama.

Obama being black has the unique advantage of gleening the highest percentage of minority votes of all time. Nobody will ever repeat his numbers with them. There is nothing hard to understand here. Liberal whites and the minority vote was enough to stop Romney.

If Obama could run for office till the day he keels over, he would not lose a presidential election. He has the MSM in his bed, the minority vote would vote for him reguardless how bad things are, and white liberals might vote for him even if he killed someone.

Come to think of it, he already has. In Benghazi.

How about all of those evengelical Christians who weren't going to sit this one out?

wisblue wrote: How about all of those evengelical Christians who weren't going to sit this one out?

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf...2-election.aspx

They held up there end. It wasn't enough to over come the white liberals and minority voters.

DukeWayne wrote: I never had any faith in the Catholic vote. Over half of people who call themselves Catholic do not follow church doctrine. They could care less if they vote for someone who supports the killing of a baby in the womb. They will only find out how wrong they were when they meet their own deaths.

As for the enthusiasm, it was there for those of us who wanted Romney to win. The republicans could not over come the minority vote. Blacks once again turned out over the 90% range. Hispanics over 75% and about the same for Asian voters. White voters went 59% for Romney. and 39% for Obama.

Obama being black has the unique advantage of gleening the highest percentage of minority votes of all time. Nobody will ever repeat his numbers with them. There is nothing hard to understand here. Liberal whites and the minority vote was enough to stop Romney.

If Obama could run for office till the day he keels over, he would not lose a presidential election. He has the MSM in his bed, the minority vote would vote for him reguardless how bad things are, and white liberals might vote for him even if he killed someone.

Come to think of it, he already has. In Benghazi.

You are missing the point here.  The narrative that has been pushed by conservatives forever is that in 2008 Republican enthusiasm was down and in 2012 it was going to be way up.  If this mattered then you would expect Romney to get significantly more votes than McCain did. 

Do you think alot of people voted for McCain in 2008 and Obama in 2012?  I don't.  I think what you are seeing is that getting the base exited doesn't matter because the base is voting anyway.  When it was said Paul Ryan was a great pick for VP because the base would get exited about him - it turns out that is irrelevant.  Romney would have been better off with Portman to try and grab a few Ohio votes or some moderate that would have developed some enthusiasm for the people in the middle to vote for Romney.  It turns out that Ryan was a poor choice.  He didn't deliver his home state and didn't deliever anything.  His plans on medicare may have cost Romney Florida. 

How else can you explain Romney getting less voters than McCain?  I know Republicans are generally older but I can't believe that many of them died in the past 4 years. 

Long story short - the base isn't enough and they will vote anyway.  If you want to win, you need to cater to the center.

I think your questions miss some of the very unusual aspect of this election.

Other than the Presidential race, the conservative vote did pretty well nationwide.  Senate races were changed by the gotcha game that some reporters played and the candidates botched their answers. 

The microcosm of Wisconsin says alot.  Elected Walker x2 in the last 2 years, repubs increased their margin in the assembly and retook the senate, and yet baldwin and obama carry the state wide race.

I'm not sure that you can call the minority vote that turned out in droves for Obama in Milwaukee (I believe I read 85 % participation) a center group.

DukeWayne wrote: I never had any faith in the Catholic vote. 

You just never bothered to tell us about it before Tuesday.

DukeWayne wrote:

wisblue wrote: How about all of those evengelical Christians who weren't going to sit this one out?

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyf...2-election.aspx

They held up there end. It wasn't enough to over come the white liberals and minority voters.

According to the published exit polls, evangelicals accounted for 26% of the vote in both 2008 and 2012, and supported Romney 78-21 as compared to 74-24 for McCain.

Considering that there were fewer total votes cast this year, if the evangelicals sat out the 2008 election, they sat out this one too.

farmerdoc wrote: I think your questions miss some of the very unusual aspect of this election.

Other than the Presidential race, the conservative vote did pretty well nationwide.  Senate races were changed by the gotcha game that some reporters played and the candidates botched their answers. 

The microcosm of Wisconsin says alot.  Elected Walker x2 in the last 2 years, repubs increased their margin in the assembly and retook the senate, and yet baldwin and obama carry the state wide race.

I'm not sure that you can call the minority vote that turned out in droves for Obama in Milwaukee (I believe I read 85 % participation) a center group.

It's hard to judge the mood of the whole state by state senate and assembly races because they can affected by gerrymandering of the districts (which both parties will do when they get the chance). If a party can clump the opposition into as few districts as possible, they can minimize the number of seats they can capture. The Republicans had their chance at redistricting in 2011, and the state legislature results may indicate that they were successful at that as much as generating more votes. For example, the district I'm in has had very tight races the last couple of elections. But, because of redistricting there wasn't even a democrat on the ballot this time.

It might be interesting to look at the district races to see how many of them split between the local races and the statewide races.

I said it before the election and got chastised for it.

Romney is not a likeable candidate.  The Tea Party people think he is a democrat, based on the primaries, the center thought he was far right wing.

Many evangelical Christians think he's not a Christian.

Many Catholics think he is pro-choice.

The hispanics wanted to self-deport him.

All that combines to dampen enthusiasm.  He was still close to winning, because of how weak of an economy we had leading to Obama being despised.  But voting because you dislike one more than the other has never been a great motivating factor.

This was truly an example of two poor candidates.  We have had a lot of those lately.

I definately agree with you that there has been a general lack of good candidates lately.

Many very good people sit it out because they do not want to put their families through the ringer.

farmerdoc wrote: I think your questions miss some of the very unusual aspect of this election.

Other than the Presidential race, the conservative vote did pretty well nationwide.  Senate races were changed by the gotcha game that some reporters played and the candidates botched their answers. 

The microcosm of Wisconsin says alot.  Elected Walker x2 in the last 2 years, repubs increased their margin in the assembly and retook the senate, and yet baldwin and obama carry the state wide race.

I'm not sure that you can call the minority vote that turned out in droves for Obama in Milwaukee (I believe I read 85 % participation) a center group.

Wisconsin was a little different than the country this election.  There were more Romney votes in 2012 than there were McCain votes in 2008.

I don't know what questions were asked of Akin and Murdoch in the senate races but  I can't think of a question that would "gotcha" anybody into saying what they said. 

The aggregate vote for assembly was something like 52-48 for the republicans.  Given the margin the number of seats I expected it to be a much larger spread.  The gerrymandering of 2010 paid off handsomely for the republicans this year. 

I haven't seen anyone here offer an explaination as to why Romney couldn't even get as many votes as McCain did?  Again  - my thought is that trying to get your base excited at the expense of moderates is a losing strategy.  There is a blog post on JSonline today that shows how poor of a VP pick Ryan was.  Romney barely won Ryan's congressional district and lost Ryan's hometown by 25 points.

Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I'm getting sick of the characterization of Obama supportes as "takers", and people who don't take responsibility for their lives.

Take a look at the election results for Milwaukee County, and you'll see that Obama got more votes in municipalities like Whitefish Bay (where I live), Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, and Shorewood.

Are you telling me that those communities are made up mostly of "takers"?

It's time for some of you to open your minds and understand that there are legitimate views of intelligent people that disagree with yours. I try to respect others' opinions even though I disagree with them. Why aren't you and some of your colleagues on this board willing to do the same?

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

So you think a few McCain voters became takers in the past 4 years and turned into Obama voters?

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

wisblue wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I'm getting sick of the characterization of Obama supportes as "takers", and people who don't take responsibility for their lives.

Take a look at the election results for Milwaukee County, and you'll see that Obama got more votes in municipalities like Whitefish Bay (where I live), Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, and Shorewood.

Are you telling me that those communities are made up mostly of "takers"?

It's time for some of you to open your minds and understand that there are legitimate views of intelligent people that disagree with yours. I try to respect others' opinions even though I disagree with them. Why aren't you and some of your colleagues on this board willing to do the same?

I didn't say ALL of Obama's supporters were takers, but IMO a majority of them are.

e.g. 47 million people on food stamps ----is there any way these souls are going to vote Republican?------then there is the Earned Income Credit-----not only do these people not pay any Fed income tax, but not uncommon for them to collect a $5,000 check from the IRS each year-----are they going to vote Republican?

Not commenting on the merits or non-merits of these programs----just saying the deck is getting stacked more and more against those
who want a balanced or near balanced budget to keep us away from severe austerity like countries in southern Europe are currently experiencing----look at their economies.

valpo wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

So you think a few McCain voters became takers in the past 4 years and turned into Obama voters?

I have no idea about that. But could it be that the Dems had personal information on those trapped in government handouts and knew where to locate them and get them to the polls?

I would agree with that.

Black people in general are going to support a black president come hell or high water-----I haven't seen any stats on this, but I would bet Romney received 75-80% of the Morman vote, as well.

But because of the ever increasing entitlement structure the Dems could run Humpty-Dumpty and be hard to beat until there is a debt crisis (I mean a huge debt crisis, as no one will bail us out)----at that point even some of the takers will be looking to bite the bullet.

Socialism works until the borrowed money runs out-----at that point everyone gets poorer, if not before ......that's where we are headed unless things change 180.

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

My point was the increased percentage to Obama had nothing to do with the Republican message.  It had everything to do with Obama himself.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

My point was the increased percentage to Obama had nothing to do with the Republican message.  It had everything to do with Obama himself.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

So you are saying is that 3M blacks turned out to vote fo Obama strictly because he is black?

How many people do you think voted against Obama because he is black?  Should the Republicans plan on getting the white racist vote once Obama isn't on the ticket?

valpo wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

My point was the increased percentage to Obama had nothing to do with the Republican message.  It had everything to do with Obama himself.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

So you are saying is that 3M blacks turned out to vote fo Obama strictly because he is black?

How many people do you think voted against Obama because he is black?  Should the Republicans plan on getting the white racist vote once Obama isn't on the ticket?

I never said any of that.  You can figure out for youself why the additional 3m voted in the past 2 elections.  I think it was for hope and change...

I can tell you this much, it had nothing to do with the republican message.  As for you question as to how many people voted against him because he was black.  You would have to ask yourself how many Dems would switch their vote because he was black.  The great majority of republicans would have voted republican anyway.

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

My point was the increased percentage to Obama had nothing to do with the Republican message.  It had everything to do with Obama himself.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

The columnist wasn't talking about the increased percentage under Obama.  He was talking about the low percentage of minorities Republicans are attracting in general.  When the high watermark is 16% among black voters, you either have to make the decision that you will try to win without blacks despite the fact that whites are declining as a percentage of the electorate or you will try change your message so that lower income minorities do not perceive it as insulting.

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

KeadysCombover wrote:

gr8one1 wrote: Two reasons why there was no enthusiasm gap------"there are more takers than there are makers"-----and the Dems had a better ground game, which located the "takers" and got them to the polls !

I heard an interesting comment from a black columnist on the radio.  He said no Republican since Bob Dole has matched the support Dole received from blacks (16%). He said one of the reasons is that the Republicans have been so insulting to the poor and black communities. "We have to teach them to accept personal responsibility." "They are the takers and not the makers." He equated it to Democrats trying to court Republican women by saying "take off your apron, get out of the kitchen, and see what life is like in the real world." I am not saying Republicans do not care about the poor or minorities.  I just think they have a significant messaging problem that they do not even realize.

The point the Dem supporters are missing out on here that their campaign and candidate did not miss out on is that about 3.2 million more African Americans voted in 2008 and 2012 than they did in 2004.  And the support went from 88 to 95% among this demographic.  If you truly believe that this is something that will be maintained when Obama is gone, more power to you.  Tell me what Obama offered to African Americans that the other Democrats in 04, 00, 96 and 92 didnt?  I'd be willing to wager a large amount that the next election cycle without BO on the ticket the Dems will lose those 3.2 million votes and the 7% bump.  This phenomenon has alot more to do with BO then it does Bob Dole for goodness sake.

Whites are declining as a percentage of the voting population. This is not news. It's been going on for a while. While it is true that a future white Democratic candidate might not generate the same turnout among blacks as Obama, it is also true that whites as a percentage of eligible voters will continue to decline. As a result, the Dems won't have to have the same percentage turnout as they did under Obama to have an advantage. In any event, I believe you missed the point. The point of my post was to convey the perception of the Republican message in the black community as reported by a black columnist. A very high percentage low income voters are minorities and, according to the columnist, they consider it insulting to be told that they have to be taught to take personal responsibility and that they are takers and not makers. You can argue whether that perception is accurate, but I will give his thoughts regarding the perception in the black community greater weight than yours. No offense.

My point was the increased percentage to Obama had nothing to do with the Republican message.  It had everything to do with Obama himself.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

The columnist wasn't talking about the increased percentage under Obama.  He was talking about the low percentage of minorities Republicans are attracting in general.  When the high watermark is 16% among black voters, you either have to make the decision that you will try to win without blacks despite the fact that whites are declining as a percentage of the electorate or you will try change your message so that lower income minorities do not perceive it as insulting.

And what Im saying is that the percentage will likely decline back to the norm after Obama is out of office, so it wont be as big of an issue as it was in this past election.

Latinos are another issue all together.  They are growing much faster then the African American population.  I think a ticket including Mr. Rubio could go a long way in garnering their vote.  His family were immagrants.  He is very eloquent.  He can speak to them from experience.  Something not many can do at that level of politics.  Not to mention he is from Florida.

MarquetteHoopsWarriors wrote:

And what Im saying is that the percentage will likely decline back to the norm after Obama is out of office, so it wont be as big of an issue as it was in this past election.

Latinos are another issue all together.  They are growing much faster then the African American population.  I think a ticket including Mr. Rubio could go a long way in garnering their vote.  His family were immagrants.  He is very eloquent.  He can speak to them from experience.  Something not many can do at that level of politics.  Not to mention he is from Florida.

I agree. It will likely go back to the norm, which means that, unless Republicans revise the message, they should not plan on garnering more than 15% of the black vote.

As for Rubio, I also agree.  He will help. Of course, if the Dems put a Latino on the ticket, the amount Rubio helps might be mitigated.  Then it will get back to the message the party is sending and, more importantly, how it is perceived. Self-deportation was a disaster.