Wrong wrong WRONG. Higher voter turnout from minorities helped Obama win. And Obama still would have won had white turnout matched 2012. We rooted for increased minority turnout, but would have been perfectly happy with increased overall turnout. If turnout was 100% in all demographics, Obama would have won with a massive margin.
Voter turnout overall decreased. His 2012 coalition was not the same as his 2008 coalition. And his message was sure as hell not the same as the “hope and change” lie.
Obama won 4 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008. If not for relatively low white turnout, which his message was specifically tailored to tamp down, he would have lost.
That’s true of any election, since the 40% of people who don’t vote generally have to think a minute when asked who the President is.
Who exactly do you think Obama’s campaign of “Mitt Romney is a rich flip flopper who outsources jobs” was directed at? If that’s not a white working class message, I don’t know what is.
But again, if you want to believe that Obama’s campaign was high minded and wanted everyone to vote, but just failed miserably, then go right ahead. Fact: 2012 saw the lowest overall voter turnout since 2000. And as you correctly point out, minorities increased their voting. WHich means that white people stayed home at historic levels. Do you believe this to be an accident?
You’re changing the subject as you always do when your facts are challenged. Your statement is false, and you’re changing the subject. Quit saying false things like “If he was trying to get his 2008 voters out, he failed.” This is false, and obviously false. Stupid blanket statements like this are usually false. Some portions had higher turnout, including the most important parts of his coalition.
Factually wrong. If you want to make factual statements like this about electoral math, you better back it up with a cite. All factual statements by you are false without a cite. Every single one will be assumed to be false.
It’s directed at voters to convince them that Romney would be a bad president and they should support Obama.
LOL. It wasn’t high-minded, and thank god it wasn’t. Negative campaigning works, and I want the politicians I support to use negative campaigning as much as possible. And he succeeded in getting out his voters, even if portions were lower in 2008 (while other portions were higher), so your statement is wrong wrong WRONG.
Black voter turnout was the highest in 2012. Hispanic and Asian turnout was the 2nd highest in 2012. White turnout was lower, but that’s because Romney sucks at politics. Romney was the one who failed to get out his voters, not Obama.
Which totally disproves your statement, because minorities are a huge part of Obama’s supporters.
I believe this to be a result of Romney’s terrible campaign and terrible politicking.
And overall, he lost 4 million votes. That would not be turning out his 2008 coalition, unless you think that the minority part of that coalition was all that mattered.
Obama needed white voters to stay home to win. In 2008, he was able to win enough white voters, especially young voters, to win easily. In 2012, that wouldn’t have cut it. Please tell me you’re not naive enough to imagine that his team didn’t know that.
6 million fewer white voters voted in 2012 compared to 2008. Just a happy accident, I’m sure.
Romney’s campaign was just fine other than the fact that he had no effective answer to Obama’s personal attacks.
So again, your answer is that Obama failed, but Romney failed worse. Obama really, really wanted white voters to come out and vote, but gosh darn it, they just couldn’t find a candidate to support in that race.
But see, that’s the point of the ad you’re criticizing. There are MILLIONS of disgruntled OBama voters. Some are unwinnable, like progressives that think he’s just marginally better than GWB. Call them the Glenn Greenwald voters. But millions more voters are winnable. Plenty of independent voters who supported Obama in 2008 are gettable.
It wasn’t all that mattered, but it was enough to win, with everything else that happened.
This cites disprove your claim. Did you even read the RCP article? It explicitly states that had all those white voters voted in 2012, Romney still would have lost.
You made claims that I challenged. You said Obama “failed” to turnout his 2008 voters. This is a stupid blanket statement, and was easily disproven – big portions of his voters turned out in higher numbers in 2012, even if not every demographic did. You also said that if white turnout matched the 2008 levels, Romney would have won. This was disproven by your own RCP cite.
Why can’t you read your cites? Why can’t you make any actual effort to be factually accurate? Aren’t you ashamed of constantly being proven wrong about such basic facts? Your posts are pathetic.
No, his campaign was terrible. He was bad at everything but the 1st debate. This is opinion – I won’t insult you for disagreeing on opinions. I will continue to mock your factual inaccuracy when present.
No, Obama succeeded – in some demographics, even better than 2008, while in others, worse. But he succeeded in gathering way more votes both electorally and in raw votes than Romney. Obama’s 2012 campaign was a big success, if not as big as 2008.
I’m going to ignore this attempt at political analysis.
What’s pathetic is thinking that the pros don’t know what they are doing. YOu don’t think this message was heavily focus grouped and tested before rollout?
This is right up there with your thinking that Obama’s brilliant campaign team didn’t know that they had to convince white voters that there were no acceptable choices. “Hey, you may hate me, but that guy’s just as bad. Pssst. He’s a Mormon!”
You made two assertions that I challenged, and both assertions were false. One of them was disproven by your own cite. I will not cooperate with your attempt to change the subject.
Read your own cites. Have some dignity. Raise your standards for factual accuracy. Stop being so damn easy to obliterate.
Boy, you are going to be one confused puppy after election day.
So you’re refusing to admit your assertions were false, and one of them was disproven by your own cite. This criticism isn’t about the next election, this is about your continued factually inaccurate statements and your refusal to put in any effort in trying to improve yourself. Why do you make it so damn easy?
Seriously – why don’t you read your own cites? Why do you make factual claims without checking to see if it’s true? Why do you say this stuff? Do you not even try to be accurate?
Do you even feel any shame at constantly being proven wrong, often by your own cites?
Unlikely, since I follow the accurate poll aggregators and models like Silver and Wang pretty closely.
Adaher, imagine if in 2004 I was insisting that GWB had lost his coalition because he broke his promise if being a “compassionate conservative”? Actually, I don’t know how you’re going to answer, so I’ll spell it out. Your contention that Obama voters are abandoning the Dems because of ‘broken promises’ is just as stupid.
Is that the voice of experience speaking?
Bush increased his support between 2000 and 2004. Obama’s dropped considerably. If you have an alternate theory as to why that happened, enlighten us.
Bush received 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004. Obama received 51.1% of the popular vote in 2012. If your theory can rationalize Obama’s greater actual ability to receive votes, do enlighten us.
Avoiding the issue. Where did 4 million Obama voters go? Obama is the first President to lose support and still win reelection in our lifetimes. Condoleeza Rice would call that a “catastrophic success”.