Team Romney GOTV Excuse Making Doesn’t Pass the Laugh Test

Per usual, Mike Murphy remains the very last person the GOP should ever listen to:


  1. david
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    GOTV was a problem, related (bigger?) problem is that Romney’s team thinks that their GOTV effort was strong & effective. Sean Trende is right about the %’s of voting blocs and changes/trends. Last I’ll put on my suspicious thinking cap to offer 2 conspiracy theories: (1) Evangelicals stayed home because of Romney’s faith; (2) Whites did not vote because they did not want to vote out the first African-American president.

    • stuckinmass
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink | Reply

      The evangelical theory sounds plausible, but I’d like to see if the data on it pans out.

      I heard that fewer seniors turned out. Strange because they are usually reliable.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink | Reply

      Texas did very well for Romney. Evangelical areas show no dropoff, and in fact the percentage of the electorate increased.
      Fewer seniors is strange, but we may be seeing that McCain just appealed to them more.

  2. MassLiberty
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    What actual precincts didn’t “turn out”. We can theorize why seemingly reliable voters mysteriously didn’t turn out until we are blue in the face. or we can look for the precinct where they did and where they didn’t – then realize that in key city precincts was the only area where they “mysteriously” didn’t show. Then we can realize that maybe they actually did. I am more convinced than ever that in targeted precincts across the nation votes were dumped. 50k here, 25K there. enough to make the difference.

    • stuckinmass
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      Can they compare the number of people who checked in to the number of votes cast?

      I really hope this isn’t the case, but I hope they can at least verify that it did/didn’t happen

      • MassLiberty
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        No way to verify that in our process

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

        Are there counties that show votes significantly below trend for the rest of the country? That would also be a giveaway

    • MassLiberty
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink | Reply

      In Ohio, how come we had numbers that said in EV that Republicans were only 70K behind, not including independents. On election day, all of a sudden the “actual” votes were over 200K behind?

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        Well no one knew who independents would vote for.

      • MassLiberty
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

        Yes we do. Romney by 5%. Next….

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

        MassLiberty, you are confused. EV was based on the last primary you voted in. So you were counted as an “independent” if you hadn’t voted in a primary. The exit polls, from which you are pulling out the 5% Romney advantages, was based on asking voters at the exits what party they identified with. Those are different metrics.

    • John
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      MassLiberty – Great theory…but until you come up with an ounce of proof it is just sour grapes. My theory is a different but somewhat related. It does appear based upon several reports that white turnout in the large metro areas was way down. It could be apathy as there are indicators of that or it could be voter intimidation. I believe the latter played a substantial role. The “We know where you live” factor in other words. Pictures I saw of precinct lines in Milwaukee and Cleveland showed them to be 100% black with zero whites in line at all. These inner-city precincts are majority black but nowhere near 100%. I believe the white voters were scared to show up. All the more reason to push early/absentee voting so they can be annonymous and not be intimidated on election day. Of course, just like your theory at this point mine is just sour grapes.

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        Again the turnout numbers in certain districts should tell this story or MassLiberty’s story.

        If the GOP vote is down across the board then it’s low voter turn out. If there’s certain areas where it’s lower than it should be then we should focus on those areas and figure out why

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

        You are living in a fantasy world like you beliefs of the polls. They were afraid of voting? Where do you guys come up with this kind of nonsense? Get out of the bubble.

      • MassLiberty
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        Not sour grapes at all. Reality. When I looked at things like Broward and Cuyahoga county coming in….it was the only areas where Romney significantly underperformed McCain. Now why would that be. I am certain if you got down to the precinct level you will find your answers. They may not have thrown out votes, but they might have checked off the names of those who didn’t show, then fill out a ballot for them. If there are crazy numbers like 80-90% voter turnout in these precincts, you will have your smoking gun. I remember last wave there were numbers > 100% registered voters in some precincts, > 100%.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        ML, then call up a local Republican Party chair and ask him for the records of who voted, give him your theory. Either you or he could do in person or phone interviews to see if they voted.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve seenother analyses that showed Romney doing worse than McCain in SouthEast Ohio, blue collar voters.

  3. Derclaw86
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink | Reply

    White evangelicals have been in a steep decline in recent years (especially younger ones). There is significant growth in the ranks of single people, as opposed to married. Older voters are naturally dying off, being replaced by younger, more secular voters. Relying on white, older, married, evangelical people as your core base is now a very dubious proposition. The family-values oriented outreach model of 2004 is no longer viable. People must come to grips with the fact that our turnout operation was not negligent or incompetent. Our problem is that there is no longer a base to turn out. The GOP is at fault for a failure to realize this.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      Evangelicals increased as a share of the electorate vs 2008.

    • Derclaw86
      Posted November 9, 2012 at 1:12 am | Permalink | Reply

      According to exit polls, white evangelicals made up 26% of the vote in 2012 and in 2008. However, since the total electoral turnout in 2008 was probably somewhat larger, the total raw number of evangelical votes certainly declined. This is despite the fact there was far more effort and resources used in registering and recruiting evangelicals than in 2008. According to polls, this group was also supposed to be more enthusiastic to vote. Furthermore, the percentage of married voters declined dramatically, from 66% of the electorate in 2008 to only 60% in 2012. Single voters went for Obama by around 20 points. This marriage gap is the same for both men and women. We have already wrung our hands at the decline in the white vote, both numerically and percentage wise. Pew Research has recently documented a survey that shows, for the first time, Protestants now make up less than half our population. It also shows a dramatic rise in the “non-religious” category, especially among the young. This is bound to be felt more at the polls in future years. I have nothing against white, married evangelicals. I share and live by many of their conservative values and it would be a mistake to abandon them. However, we must refine our policies in such a way that preserves our values while being able to serve the needs of a wider (especially single, non-white, secular) electorate.

  4. Ron
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    One good thing in all this: demographics apparently haven’t changed all that much since 2008. The GOP doesn’t have to pander to get Hispanic votes. It wouldn’t do any good anyway–though it wouldn’t hurt to peel away some Latinos next time around. We must figure out what depressed the white vote, though. That’s essential. If it was the evangelical voter that stayed home, that’s one thing. If it was the blue-collar Santorum voter, that’s another. We also need to deal with the “consultant” issue. Those guys simply don’t get it.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink | Reply

      Let Latinos age, marry, work jobs, and build equity and they will drift naturally toward the conservative side, like every other race has but Blacks. What interests me more is why, for example, McCrory the candidate for Governor in NC got 46% of the Latino vote but Romney got only 31%. That interests me.

  5. John
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    Bill O’Reilly is a blow hard, but I agree with something he said last evening. If Obama and the Dems don’t right the economy by the 2014 elections another republican wave will sweep them into irrelevance for perhaps a decade or more, regardless of the demographics. The sympathetic voters of this nation (I would call them suckers) have graciously given Obama a 2nd chance. But, his blame Bush tactics which have saved his butt for the past four years will no longer work. He now owns 100% of the economy and any result that happens. The world situation looks bleak. Headlines today about a German recession probably being unavoidable which will carry all of Europe down with it. China is on the edge. Major layoffs have been announced by a number of major U.S. employers (Boeing did so today). No matter what the solution to the “fiscal cliff” is it will most likely have at least some negative impact on the ecomony (at least some higher taxes and some spending cuts).

    The next two years for Obama look dubious. Same would have been true for Romney but his policies would’ve had a greater probability of success. Perhaps Obama will pull it out, but given his history of performance and ideological purity it seems unlikely. The full economic impact of Obamacare will hit within the next 18 months and it won’t be pretty. While 2014 and 2016 seem and eternity away right now some degree of republican optimism seems justified based upon Obama’s history of failure and doing precisely the wrong thing. NOTE – this does not mean we are rooting against America. It simply means it is payoff time for the 2nd chance bet on Obama. He has to now finally PROVE his policies work based upon actual results. I refuse to believe a majority of the electorate would tolerate continued failure, again regardless of the demographics.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      Dems are pretty screwed for 2014 regardless of the economy, though it will surely be terrible. They have too many Senate seats in red states; the House will again be a wash at best for them.

      They also face the prospect of running in 2016 without a Black at the top of the ticket. Imagine if the black vote returns to 11% of the electorate, with Republicans getting 10% of their vote (the historic average). Right there the Dems fall 2 points in the hole compared to Obama’s 2012 showing.

      I give Republicans a 65% chance of controlling all 3 branches by 2016.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        That same thing was true in 2012. Instead, they won North Dakota, Montana, etc. Harry Reid scheduled a special vote so Tester could look Republican.

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

        Turnout in Presidential elections hampers Republicans, so no “the same thing” wasn’t true in 2012. The electorate will be smaller in 2014, which helps Republicans.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        That’s not a safe assumption. Keep in mind that the Obama turnout machine was active in 2010, and held down the Republican margins. Probably kept the Senate in Dem hands, with Nevada and Colorado and Washington at least. The House gains could have been much bigger.

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        “That’s not a safe assumption.” It is a safe assumption that turnout is smaller in off-year elections. Look at the numbers.

        “Keep in mind that the Obama turnout machine was active in 2010, and held down the Republican margins.” And it can “hold down the margins” again in 2014; we overcame the margins in the House. Nevada, Colorado, and Washington are nothing like many of the states Democrats are running for Senate in 2014–Alaska, for example. And why would the “Obama turnout machine” be active in 2014 when he’s preparing to exit the office?

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        It’s active because Obama is a Marxist. He is interested in preserving what he achieved. He didn’t need to expand his majority, just get reelected to keep the gains he has made. In a second term, many of the negative things come out, and he will be trying to play defense on that, while simultaneously doing school curriculum reform, labor reform, and suburban taxation to boost the cities.

  6. Tony
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink | Reply

    Looking at the senate races in 2014, makes you even more sick about Akin, Mourdock, O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle. The five dunces.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      We can’t have any more whiffs like this in 2014.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      Buck and ODonnell were fine, as was Mourdock. Lugar delivered Indiana to Obama. I saw that it was a problem and that Lugar was well respected, but it’s worth the risk. Ken Buck was done in by the Dem turnout machine, and was leading in polls. ODonnell vs Castle, was a lost seat, but I think a good loss. Didn’t think so at the time, but now I see that it pushed the other Republicans in a more conservative direction.

  7. stuckinmass
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink | Reply

    There are rumors circulating here in MA that John Kerry may be picked as Secretary of State in Jan and Scott Brown may go for his seat

    • Tony
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink | Reply

      I thought Brown was going to run for governor in 2014?

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      Brown’s not done in politics; he’s too popular. He did really well considering the tidal wave he faced. We’ll see. Personally I think Governor is a better fit for him.

    • stuckinmass
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Governor is the other rumor, and that seems likely as well.

      One problem In MA politics, there aren’t a whole lot of Republicans with name recognition. That’s one reason they got Mitt Romney to run. MA knew him from the Olympics and almost defeating Ted Kennedy in 1994. So I’m sure Brown will be back.

      They said if he goes for Kerry’s seat, he’d have to win a special election in 2013, and then the term expires in 2014. That would be 4 Senate campaigns in 5 years for him, which might be too daunting.

    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Actually…if Kerry resigns his seat to take SOS because the vacancy would occur between a general election and the expiration of the term, the governor woudl appoint a replacement to fulfill the remaining 2 years of Kerry’s term. My gut says Deval Patrick would appoint himself to fill Kerry’s seat through 2014. That would allow him to be the incumbant going into the election. The Lt. Governor would take over as governor until the end of the term.

      The choice would be does Brown run for Patricks seat as Governor or for Senate again. Always the speculation that Romney would run for one of those two 🙂

  8. Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Get out the vote failed? How about Motivate Out the Vote in the first place failed?!

  9. Frank Benjamin
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:57 am | Permalink | Reply

    Romney Danced with the Devil and Lost!

    Romney did not need to go into the Roe v Wade issue. He scared many young, naïve American women.

    His approach re: Hispanic issues was just plain stupid. He should have just gone out to speak to Hispanic audiences, in their native tongue, and, like Obama, told them anything they wanted to hear! Instead of trying to deport them. KISS…keep it simple stupid!

    That 47% speech was stupid. You must consider that when running for public office, everything you say might be tape-recorded.

    Obama stayed stoned while at Occidental University in California and flunked out of school his second year at Occidental.. Obama never attended Columbia University. The CIA arranged for Obama to get a fake Columbia Diploma. No one at Columbia ever remembers seeing him. He is not in the Columbia yearbook. There is no Columbia transcript, as Donald Trump was trying to point out!

    The CIA helped Obama with name change and fake Selective Service and Social Security numbers. Obama could never be vetted because of these things. No legitimate law firm would hire him. Barry could not be vetted and so the corrupt US Media and the corrupt Democratic Party made him President of the US, instead!

    Romney should have attacked Obama re: his Columbia University fraud and the issue that the Saudis paid $23 million to get him into Harvard Law. That Barry is a coke head and was a former drug dealer (see his book) and never held a real job in his entire life. Except when, in 1982-1983, when he was a CIA drug mule in Pakistan.

    And that Barry is a Saudi agent, in the White House, no less! And has for four years been actively, on orders from the Saudis, trying to destroy the USA. All that wind, solar, ethanol, no drilling permits, no Keystone Pipeline, continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., was just playing into the Saudi efforts to keep the USA bankrupt and dependent on Saudis oil.

    The reason Romney did not attack Barry on these Saudi issues is that the Bush Crime Family, the Carlyle Group and the Saudis themselves would not allow Romney to do these things. Plus, why would you be so stupid as to have Condylessa Rice, Laura Bush and Carl Rove out campaigning for you. And have Bush puppets, Col Micheal Hayden and Judge Micheal Chertoff as your senior advisors.

    “When you dance with the devil, the devil don’t change… the devil changes you.”

    America’s chances for a course direction went down the tubes when the Bush Crime Family used their pals at Diebold and ESS, in twenty states, and the corrupt, Saudi owned US media to disenfrachranchise Dr. Ron Paul during the Republican primaries.

    That’s when our last best hope went down the drain!

    Frank Benjamin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: