President Donald Trump claimed and Rush Limbaugh is still claiming that Trump won in a Electoral College landslide. But was Trump's win really a Electoral College landslide??? Nope. As has been pointed out from fact checking websites, Trump’s Electoral College margin of victory ranked 46th out of the 58 U.S. Presidential elections. (1) (2)
How does Trump’s Electoral College margin of victory ranks during the last 12 Presidential elections? President Trump’s Electoral College margin of victory ranks at number nine during the last 12 Presidential elections. Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980 and in 1984, Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1992 and in 1996, and Obama in 2008 and in 2012 got more electoral votes than what Trump got in 2016.
Out of the 14 Battleground and swing States during this last Presidential election, Donald Trump’s popular vote margin over Hillary Clinton was just 1.21%. (3) (4)
And as for Michigan, which has 16 electoral votes, President Trump's popular vote margin over Hillary Clinton was just only 0.223%. The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson got 3.587% of the vote while the far left-wing Green candidate Jill Stein got 1.07% of the vote there. (5)
1. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-landslide-nope/
2. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/12/donald-trump/donald-trumps-electoral-college-victory-was-not-ma/
3. Trump - 24,019,066 - 47.98% — Clinton - 23,414,721 - 46.77% — Others - 2,632,130 - 5.25%
4. 2016 Battleground and swing States were Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
5. http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Monday, October 19, 2015
Responding to Senator Sanders' statement that Republicans win in low voter turnout.
During the October 13th Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders stated:
"Republicans win when there is a low voter turnout, and that is what happened last November."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/
However, that statement is not completely true about the 2014 November midterm elections.
For example, Republican Cory Gardner ended up defeating Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado with a pretty high turnout voter there.
From the New York Times:
"Yet in Colorado, Mr. Udall lost despite a better Democratic turnout than in 2010. So far, the state has tabulated 2.06 million ballots, or nearly 80 percent of the 2.57 million votes in the 2012 presidential election, according to an Upshot analysis of ballot tabulation data from the Colorado secretary of state. The turnout was nearly 300,000 votes higher than in 2010, when a strong Democratic turnout effort propelled Senator Michael Bennet to a come-from-behind victory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/turnout-a-scapegoat-wasnt-always-the-difference-this-time.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0
Here are the 2014 Colorado's Senate election results:
Cory Gardner - 983,891 - 48.21%
Mark Udall --- 944,203 - 46.26%
Others ------ 112,964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado,_2014
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/2014/general/index.html
The State of Virginia had a very low voter turnout during the 2014 November midterm elections, but Incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner was able to still win reelection over his GOP Opponent there by 0.8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2014
And the State of California had a very low voter turnout during the 2014 November midterm elections, but the Democrats ended up winning all of the seven State offices there.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-4-2014/
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/02/11/california-2014-voter-turnout-was-even-worse-than-you-thought/
"Republicans win when there is a low voter turnout, and that is what happened last November."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/
However, that statement is not completely true about the 2014 November midterm elections.
For example, Republican Cory Gardner ended up defeating Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado with a pretty high turnout voter there.
From the New York Times:
"Yet in Colorado, Mr. Udall lost despite a better Democratic turnout than in 2010. So far, the state has tabulated 2.06 million ballots, or nearly 80 percent of the 2.57 million votes in the 2012 presidential election, according to an Upshot analysis of ballot tabulation data from the Colorado secretary of state. The turnout was nearly 300,000 votes higher than in 2010, when a strong Democratic turnout effort propelled Senator Michael Bennet to a come-from-behind victory."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/turnout-a-scapegoat-wasnt-always-the-difference-this-time.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0
Here are the 2014 Colorado's Senate election results:
Cory Gardner - 983,891 - 48.21%
Mark Udall --- 944,203 - 46.26%
Others ------ 112,964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado,_2014
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Abstract/2014/general/index.html
The State of Virginia had a very low voter turnout during the 2014 November midterm elections, but Incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner was able to still win reelection over his GOP Opponent there by 0.8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Virginia,_2014
And the State of California had a very low voter turnout during the 2014 November midterm elections, but the Democrats ended up winning all of the seven State offices there.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-4-2014/
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/02/11/california-2014-voter-turnout-was-even-worse-than-you-thought/
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Independents does not equal moderates
Rush Limbaugh seems to think that Independents and moderates are essentially the same.
Here is what he recently stated from two of his radio shows:
After doing that, then they'd have to moderate a bit in directions away from the base to pick up, say, the precious independents and moderates. Now if you've listened to me regularly, you know that I think this is a giant trick or trap that has been played on Republicans for I don't know how long, because what it in effect did was create Republican candidacies which were designed to appeal to only 20% of the electorate, while the Democrats were out running candidacies aiming at everybody, as many people as they could.
...
"You need me because I am uniquely qualified, I'm uniquely capable, I'm uniquely talented to show independents why you're the man. So a candidate would be presented with a campaign that took the base for granted, and it was aimed at independents (i.e., moderates) or even liberals. Is it any wonder Republican candidates would lose in that scenario, because what happened is, the base was taken for granted, and as is the case in 2012, four million of 'em stayed home and didn't vote for Romney.
I don't know if it's because they were angry at being taken for granted and decided to teach a lesson, or if they were just unenthused by the Romney candidacy. It could have been a combination of many things. But the bottom line is, four million members of the Republican base didn't vote. It didn't matter. Romney did win the independents. Do you remember this? In 2012, Mitt Romney won the independents going away -- it wasn't even close -- and that used to be the rubric. That used to be what you had to do.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/04/jeb_bush_falls_for_old_trick
And, ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned this, too, we had to edit some of this for time. The 2012 presidential race, Romney lost that race while winning the vast majority of independents. That's another trick that's played. You Republicans, you better win the independents, you don't have a chance. Well, he went out, he campaigned for the independents all right, and he got the vast majority of them, but four million of his own voters stayed home, four million! Four million Republicans stayed home. The people that vote Republican are tired of the Republican Party not listening.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/08/my_response_to_myself_as_the_news
However, Independents does not equal moderates. A lot of Conservatives over the last several years have been becoming Independents, and they don't consider themselves Republicans anymore. This is the main reason that according to exit polls that Romney won the Independent vote by 5% while losing the moderate vote by about 15%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
And I have already refuted Rush Limbaugh's false election analysis of Romney losing because four million "of 'em" stayed home.
http://brack-thethoughtsofchris.blogspot.com/2014/04/rush-limbaugh-is-wrong-on-why-romney.html
http://brack-thethoughtsofchris.blogspot.com/2014/12/rush-limbaugh-continues-to-be-wrong-on.html
Here is what he recently stated from two of his radio shows:
After doing that, then they'd have to moderate a bit in directions away from the base to pick up, say, the precious independents and moderates. Now if you've listened to me regularly, you know that I think this is a giant trick or trap that has been played on Republicans for I don't know how long, because what it in effect did was create Republican candidacies which were designed to appeal to only 20% of the electorate, while the Democrats were out running candidacies aiming at everybody, as many people as they could.
...
"You need me because I am uniquely qualified, I'm uniquely capable, I'm uniquely talented to show independents why you're the man. So a candidate would be presented with a campaign that took the base for granted, and it was aimed at independents (i.e., moderates) or even liberals. Is it any wonder Republican candidates would lose in that scenario, because what happened is, the base was taken for granted, and as is the case in 2012, four million of 'em stayed home and didn't vote for Romney.
I don't know if it's because they were angry at being taken for granted and decided to teach a lesson, or if they were just unenthused by the Romney candidacy. It could have been a combination of many things. But the bottom line is, four million members of the Republican base didn't vote. It didn't matter. Romney did win the independents. Do you remember this? In 2012, Mitt Romney won the independents going away -- it wasn't even close -- and that used to be the rubric. That used to be what you had to do.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/04/jeb_bush_falls_for_old_trick
And, ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned this, too, we had to edit some of this for time. The 2012 presidential race, Romney lost that race while winning the vast majority of independents. That's another trick that's played. You Republicans, you better win the independents, you don't have a chance. Well, he went out, he campaigned for the independents all right, and he got the vast majority of them, but four million of his own voters stayed home, four million! Four million Republicans stayed home. The people that vote Republican are tired of the Republican Party not listening.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/08/my_response_to_myself_as_the_news
However, Independents does not equal moderates. A lot of Conservatives over the last several years have been becoming Independents, and they don't consider themselves Republicans anymore. This is the main reason that according to exit polls that Romney won the Independent vote by 5% while losing the moderate vote by about 15%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
And I have already refuted Rush Limbaugh's false election analysis of Romney losing because four million "of 'em" stayed home.
http://brack-thethoughtsofchris.blogspot.com/2014/04/rush-limbaugh-is-wrong-on-why-romney.html
http://brack-thethoughtsofchris.blogspot.com/2014/12/rush-limbaugh-continues-to-be-wrong-on.html
Friday, December 5, 2014
Rush Limbaugh Continues to be Wrong on why Romney lost the Presidential election
Rush Limbaugh is still falsely claiming on his radio show that the reason why Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election is because "four million Republicans stayed home" during that election.
Here are more of these clips about this from his radio show:
That's not why. People are looking at this the wrong way. Mitt Romney is a fine man. Mitt Romney may be one of the most decent people you'll ever run into. But folks, with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare ticking time bomb that it was, if the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/04/no_mitt_romney_can_t_win_this_time
Now, you know, you people do not make this easy. But I must respond honestly, truthfully, and straightforwardly. I don't understand the Romney rerun. He lost. He lost quite handily. And he lost not because of abortion. He didn't lose because of contraception. He didn't lose because of Bain Capital. He lost because of Romneycare. He lost because of a bunch of blue-collar Democrats chose to stay with B. Hussein O., and he lost because four million Republicans who had voted in 2008 decided not to in 2012. I've seen a number of different analyses, that if those four million Republicans had showed up, that Romney would be president.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/29/caller_solves_mitt_romney_s_problems
Four million Republicans who voted in '08 didn't vote in 2012, and had they, Romney would have been elected. I don't care what you think of Romney, he would have been much better than what we've got. Without question. I mean, that's not even up for debate. But you're not gonna show 'em a lesson. They're not gonna get that. That's not what's gonna change their minds.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/09/18/voting_democrat_won_t_teach_gop_a_lesson
"To give you an idea how bad it is for Republicans, they're talking about Romney again. Now, I love Mitt Romney as a human being. Mitt Romney is just one of the most decent guys you'll ever run into. Unfortunately, he's demonstrated two things: That four million Republicans will not vote for him and stay home instead, and that he can lose."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/20/pearls_of_wisdom
If the Republican Party does something in the wrong way, they're gonna force 24 million people to sit home, not four. And they're never gonna win a thing. You can black vote, female vote all you want, but they're never gonna win diddly-squat. I mean, they already lost four million voters in 2012 from 2008, four million who voted for McCain didn't vote for Romney, up for grabs as to why, bunch of different theories, but if that four million becomes five, 10, 15, 24 million, you can write off whatever else the Democrats do, it isn't gonna matter. I think that just really irritates, that fact, a lot of moderate or liberal Republicans who wish it weren't the case.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/22/mark_cuban_s_advice_for_the_gop
"You need me because I am uniquely qualified, I'm uniquely capable, I'm uniquely talented to show independents why you're the man. So a candidate would be presented with a campaign that took the base for granted, and it was aimed at independents (i.e., moderates) or even liberals. Is it any wonder Republican candidates would lose in that scenario, because what happened is, the base was taken for granted, and as is the case in 2012, four million of 'em stayed home and didn't vote for Romney.
I don't know if it's because they were angry at being taken for granted and decided to teach a lesson, or if they were just unenthused by the Romney candidacy. It could have been a combination of many things. But the bottom line is, four million members of the Republican base didn't vote. It didn't matter. Romney did win the independents. Do you remember this? In 2012, Mitt Romney won the independents going away -- it wasn't even close -- and that used to be the rubric. That used to be what you had to do.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/04/jeb_bush_falls_for_old_trick
In 2010 the Democrats got shellacked in the midterm elections. Now, follow me on this. In 2010 the Democrats got shellacked. They lost 700 seats down the ballot. House, Senate, statehouse, governorship, down to local town and council, all those races, 700 seats. The Republicans would have won the presidency in 2012 if four million of their voters had not decided to stay home. In 2014, the Democrats get shellacked again. So in 2010 and 2014 the Democrats have lost over 1,300 seats, over a thousand seats at least. It's a disaster what's happened.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/05/trent_lott_blames_your_beloved_host_for_killing_amnesty_in_2007
Here are again the certified official election results from the Federal Election Commission from the last three Presidential elections:
2012 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 65,915,796 - 51.06%
2012 - Mitt Romney (Republican) ---- 60,933,500 - 47.20%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf
2008 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 69,498,516 - 52.93%
2008 - John McCain (Republican) ---- 59,948,323 - 45.65%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
2004 - John F. Kerry (Democrat) ------ 59,028,444 - 48.27%
2004 - George W. Bush (Republican) --- 62,040,610 - 50.73%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf
And here are the 2012, 2008, and 2004 Presidential election results from these five battleground States:
Colorado:
2012 Obama - 1,323,102
2008 Obama - 1,288,633
2012 Romney - 1,185,243
2008 McCain -- 1,073,629
2004 Bush ----- 1,101,255
Iowa:
2012 Obama -- 822,544
2008 Obama -- 828,940
2012 Romney - 730,617
2008 McCain -- 682,379
2004 Bush ----- 751,957
Nevada:
2012 Obama -- 531,373
2008 Obama -- 533,736
2012 Romney - 463,567
2008 McCain -- 412,827
2004 Bush ----- 418,690
North Carolina:
2012 Obama -- 2,178,391
2008 Obama -- 2,142,651
2012 Romney - 2,270,395
2008 McCain -- 2,128,474
2004 Bush ----- 1,961,166
Virginia:
2012 Obama -- 1,971,820
2008 Obama -- 1,959,532
2012 Romney - 1,822,522
2008 McCain -- 1,725,005
2004 Bush ----- 1,716,959
Romney got more votes in the battleground States of North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada than what both McCain in 2008 and Bush 43 in 2004 got in those four States. Romney did get 21,340 less votes in Iowa than what Bush 43 got there, but Romney got 48,238 more votes in Iowa than what McCain got there. Romney ended up winning the swing State of North Carolina while Obama won the swing States of Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.
Here are more of these clips about this from his radio show:
That's not why. People are looking at this the wrong way. Mitt Romney is a fine man. Mitt Romney may be one of the most decent people you'll ever run into. But folks, with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare ticking time bomb that it was, if the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/04/no_mitt_romney_can_t_win_this_time
Now, you know, you people do not make this easy. But I must respond honestly, truthfully, and straightforwardly. I don't understand the Romney rerun. He lost. He lost quite handily. And he lost not because of abortion. He didn't lose because of contraception. He didn't lose because of Bain Capital. He lost because of Romneycare. He lost because of a bunch of blue-collar Democrats chose to stay with B. Hussein O., and he lost because four million Republicans who had voted in 2008 decided not to in 2012. I've seen a number of different analyses, that if those four million Republicans had showed up, that Romney would be president.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/08/29/caller_solves_mitt_romney_s_problems
Four million Republicans who voted in '08 didn't vote in 2012, and had they, Romney would have been elected. I don't care what you think of Romney, he would have been much better than what we've got. Without question. I mean, that's not even up for debate. But you're not gonna show 'em a lesson. They're not gonna get that. That's not what's gonna change their minds.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/09/18/voting_democrat_won_t_teach_gop_a_lesson
"To give you an idea how bad it is for Republicans, they're talking about Romney again. Now, I love Mitt Romney as a human being. Mitt Romney is just one of the most decent guys you'll ever run into. Unfortunately, he's demonstrated two things: That four million Republicans will not vote for him and stay home instead, and that he can lose."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/20/pearls_of_wisdom
If the Republican Party does something in the wrong way, they're gonna force 24 million people to sit home, not four. And they're never gonna win a thing. You can black vote, female vote all you want, but they're never gonna win diddly-squat. I mean, they already lost four million voters in 2012 from 2008, four million who voted for McCain didn't vote for Romney, up for grabs as to why, bunch of different theories, but if that four million becomes five, 10, 15, 24 million, you can write off whatever else the Democrats do, it isn't gonna matter. I think that just really irritates, that fact, a lot of moderate or liberal Republicans who wish it weren't the case.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/22/mark_cuban_s_advice_for_the_gop
"You need me because I am uniquely qualified, I'm uniquely capable, I'm uniquely talented to show independents why you're the man. So a candidate would be presented with a campaign that took the base for granted, and it was aimed at independents (i.e., moderates) or even liberals. Is it any wonder Republican candidates would lose in that scenario, because what happened is, the base was taken for granted, and as is the case in 2012, four million of 'em stayed home and didn't vote for Romney.
I don't know if it's because they were angry at being taken for granted and decided to teach a lesson, or if they were just unenthused by the Romney candidacy. It could have been a combination of many things. But the bottom line is, four million members of the Republican base didn't vote. It didn't matter. Romney did win the independents. Do you remember this? In 2012, Mitt Romney won the independents going away -- it wasn't even close -- and that used to be the rubric. That used to be what you had to do.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/04/jeb_bush_falls_for_old_trick
In 2010 the Democrats got shellacked in the midterm elections. Now, follow me on this. In 2010 the Democrats got shellacked. They lost 700 seats down the ballot. House, Senate, statehouse, governorship, down to local town and council, all those races, 700 seats. The Republicans would have won the presidency in 2012 if four million of their voters had not decided to stay home. In 2014, the Democrats get shellacked again. So in 2010 and 2014 the Democrats have lost over 1,300 seats, over a thousand seats at least. It's a disaster what's happened.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/05/trent_lott_blames_your_beloved_host_for_killing_amnesty_in_2007
Here are again the certified official election results from the Federal Election Commission from the last three Presidential elections:
2012 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 65,915,796 - 51.06%
2012 - Mitt Romney (Republican) ---- 60,933,500 - 47.20%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf
2008 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 69,498,516 - 52.93%
2008 - John McCain (Republican) ---- 59,948,323 - 45.65%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
2004 - John F. Kerry (Democrat) ------ 59,028,444 - 48.27%
2004 - George W. Bush (Republican) --- 62,040,610 - 50.73%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf
And here are the 2012, 2008, and 2004 Presidential election results from these five battleground States:
Colorado:
2012 Obama - 1,323,102
2008 Obama - 1,288,633
2012 Romney - 1,185,243
2008 McCain -- 1,073,629
2004 Bush ----- 1,101,255
Iowa:
2012 Obama -- 822,544
2008 Obama -- 828,940
2012 Romney - 730,617
2008 McCain -- 682,379
2004 Bush ----- 751,957
Nevada:
2012 Obama -- 531,373
2008 Obama -- 533,736
2012 Romney - 463,567
2008 McCain -- 412,827
2004 Bush ----- 418,690
North Carolina:
2012 Obama -- 2,178,391
2008 Obama -- 2,142,651
2012 Romney - 2,270,395
2008 McCain -- 2,128,474
2004 Bush ----- 1,961,166
Virginia:
2012 Obama -- 1,971,820
2008 Obama -- 1,959,532
2012 Romney - 1,822,522
2008 McCain -- 1,725,005
2004 Bush ----- 1,716,959
Romney got more votes in the battleground States of North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada than what both McCain in 2008 and Bush 43 in 2004 got in those four States. Romney did get 21,340 less votes in Iowa than what Bush 43 got there, but Romney got 48,238 more votes in Iowa than what McCain got there. Romney ended up winning the swing State of North Carolina while Obama won the swing States of Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Rush Limbaugh is Wrong on why Romney lost the Presidential election
Rush Limbaugh has been claiming on his radio show that the reason why Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election is because "four million Republicans stayed home" during that election.
Here are a few clips about this from his radio show:
Did you look at how many Republicans didn't show up to vote for Mitt Romney in 2008? Do you realize that if the Republican Party base had turned out, Obama would have been defeated? Why didn't it happen? When does fighting for freedom backfire? Explain that to me. Because that's what this is. I guess some of these establishment types in Washington, regardless of party, I don't think they really understand. I think there is such a divide in this country, it is so wide, that some people in politics, it's their business to understand these things. They don't even know what really is going on. I just heard Michael Barone say, "Well, this is nothing but theater. All Ted Cruz has done is engage in something that's impossible."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/25/ted_cruz_is_fighting_for_freedom
And that stems from the fact that Obama won the election. To people like Parsons and these guys, well, that's the will of the people speaking. I mean, the vast majority of people spoke and they elected Obama. The people on our side don't think that's what happened. Yeah, Obama won the election, but we don't think it was a madcap endorsement of Obama. There were four million Republicans that didn't show up because they weren't happy with the nominee. There were four million Republicans that didn't show up because they're dissatisfied with the Republican Party and they simply wanted to let it be known.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/10/14/remember_when_bush_won_and_liberals_said_he_should_get_everything_he_want
"You can't win if you don't do that!" I told you, I talked to an elected Republican last week who may run for president. He said to me, "Rush, Republicans can't win simply by turning out their base anymore. Democrats can; we can't." I said, "Now, wait a minute. There were four million Republicans that did not vote in 2012 for Mitt Romney. They sat home. If they'd have shown up, that's the base. We would have won.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/14/the_gop_establishment_wants_to_run_on_fixing_not_repealing_obamacare
I know. My answer to that is, "If you don't want to run, just say so, rather than disqualify yourself." I mean, yeah, I think Tea Party... We know that four million Republicans in 2012 stayed home. Stop and think. I still can't believe it. I mean, I believe it, but in 2012, four million Republicans stayed home for the very reason she's talking about here.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/08/bush_clinton_is_really_the_best_we_can_d
The Truth of the matter is that Romney didn't lose because "four million Republicans stayed home" during the 2012 Presidential election.
Here are the certified official election results from the Federal Election Commission from the last three Presidential elections:
2012 - Mitt Romney (Republican) ---- 60,933,500 - 47.20%
2012 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 65,915,796 - 51.06%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf
2008 - John McCain (Republican) ---- 59,948,323 - 45.65%
2008 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 69,498,516 - 52.93%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
2004 - George W. Bush (Republican) --- 62,040,610 - 50.73%
2004 - John F. Kerry (Democrat) ------ 59,028,444 - 48.27%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf
Romney in 2012 got nearly a million more votes nationally than what McCain got in 2008. Bush 43 in 2004 got about 1.1 million more votes nationally than Romney got in 2012. However, that is not close to getting four million more votes than what Romney got nationally. Plus, Romney got more votes than what both McCain and Bush 43 got in the battleground States. The Battleground States were Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin during the last election.
2012 Battleground States:
Obama --- 20,419,683 - 51.0%
Romney -- 19,035,767 - 47.5%
Others ---- 595,687 --- 01.5%
2012 Battleground States in 2008:
Obama --- 20,887,364 - 52.7%
McCain -- 18,255,979 - 46.0%
Others ---- 514,261 --- 01.3%
2012 Battleground States in 2004:
Bush ---- 18,724,216
Kerry --- 17,659,246
Others ---- 293,177
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Votes_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Votes_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Votes_by_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swing_states_2012.svg
Here are a few clips about this from his radio show:
Did you look at how many Republicans didn't show up to vote for Mitt Romney in 2008? Do you realize that if the Republican Party base had turned out, Obama would have been defeated? Why didn't it happen? When does fighting for freedom backfire? Explain that to me. Because that's what this is. I guess some of these establishment types in Washington, regardless of party, I don't think they really understand. I think there is such a divide in this country, it is so wide, that some people in politics, it's their business to understand these things. They don't even know what really is going on. I just heard Michael Barone say, "Well, this is nothing but theater. All Ted Cruz has done is engage in something that's impossible."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/25/ted_cruz_is_fighting_for_freedom
And that stems from the fact that Obama won the election. To people like Parsons and these guys, well, that's the will of the people speaking. I mean, the vast majority of people spoke and they elected Obama. The people on our side don't think that's what happened. Yeah, Obama won the election, but we don't think it was a madcap endorsement of Obama. There were four million Republicans that didn't show up because they weren't happy with the nominee. There were four million Republicans that didn't show up because they're dissatisfied with the Republican Party and they simply wanted to let it be known.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/10/14/remember_when_bush_won_and_liberals_said_he_should_get_everything_he_want
"You can't win if you don't do that!" I told you, I talked to an elected Republican last week who may run for president. He said to me, "Rush, Republicans can't win simply by turning out their base anymore. Democrats can; we can't." I said, "Now, wait a minute. There were four million Republicans that did not vote in 2012 for Mitt Romney. They sat home. If they'd have shown up, that's the base. We would have won.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/14/the_gop_establishment_wants_to_run_on_fixing_not_repealing_obamacare
I know. My answer to that is, "If you don't want to run, just say so, rather than disqualify yourself." I mean, yeah, I think Tea Party... We know that four million Republicans in 2012 stayed home. Stop and think. I still can't believe it. I mean, I believe it, but in 2012, four million Republicans stayed home for the very reason she's talking about here.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/04/08/bush_clinton_is_really_the_best_we_can_d
The Truth of the matter is that Romney didn't lose because "four million Republicans stayed home" during the 2012 Presidential election.
Here are the certified official election results from the Federal Election Commission from the last three Presidential elections:
2012 - Mitt Romney (Republican) ---- 60,933,500 - 47.20%
2012 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 65,915,796 - 51.06%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf
2008 - John McCain (Republican) ---- 59,948,323 - 45.65%
2008 - Barack Obama (Democrat) --- 69,498,516 - 52.93%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
2004 - George W. Bush (Republican) --- 62,040,610 - 50.73%
2004 - John F. Kerry (Democrat) ------ 59,028,444 - 48.27%
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf
Romney in 2012 got nearly a million more votes nationally than what McCain got in 2008. Bush 43 in 2004 got about 1.1 million more votes nationally than Romney got in 2012. However, that is not close to getting four million more votes than what Romney got nationally. Plus, Romney got more votes than what both McCain and Bush 43 got in the battleground States. The Battleground States were Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin during the last election.
2012 Battleground States:
Obama --- 20,419,683 - 51.0%
Romney -- 19,035,767 - 47.5%
Others ---- 595,687 --- 01.5%
2012 Battleground States in 2008:
Obama --- 20,887,364 - 52.7%
McCain -- 18,255,979 - 46.0%
Others ---- 514,261 --- 01.3%
2012 Battleground States in 2004:
Bush ---- 18,724,216
Kerry --- 17,659,246
Others ---- 293,177
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Votes_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Votes_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Votes_by_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swing_states_2012.svg
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Yes on Proposition 32!!!
Proposition 32 is the most important Initiative in California to vote Yes on for this November Election. The Orange County Register, the Press-Enterprise, the San Diego Tribune, and the San Bernardino Sun all Endorse Proposition 32.
Editorial: Yes on Prop. 32 (unions):
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/union-373543-unions-prop.html
ELECTION: Yes on 32:
http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20121010-election-yes-on-32.ece
Yes on 32: Break the union stranglehold:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/05/yes-on-32-break-the-union-stranglehold/
Straight story on Proposition 32:
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_21785848/straight-story-proposition-32
Editorial: Yes on Prop. 32 (unions):
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/union-373543-unions-prop.html
ELECTION: Yes on 32:
http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20121010-election-yes-on-32.ece
Yes on 32: Break the union stranglehold:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/05/yes-on-32-break-the-union-stranglehold/
Straight story on Proposition 32:
http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_21785848/straight-story-proposition-32
Friday, September 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
