"4 Million Conservatives Stayed Home in 2012 Election"

[Twangbanger]

Here's a data-studded and thoroughly laid-out viewpoint, which asserts that this "conventional wisdom" is simply not true:

The Myth of "4 Million Conservative Voters Stayed Home in 2012" | RedState

Offered for your consideration. I know this is a cherished belief on INGO, so...let's see if we can persuade anyone to reconsider their previous beliefs regarding what really happened in 2012. I found it interesting, and suppose it could either supply the key to figuring out how to line up the planets to beat Hillary...or, the beginnings of understanding why it didn't happen.

 

[MisterChester]

Is it better to stay home or vote for someone else that probably won't win?

 

[spec4]

Is it better to stay home or vote for someone else that probably won't win?

If you stay home you are helping somebody win.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Is it better to stay home or vote for someone else that probably won't win?

It's best to vote for who you want. Regardless of whether or not they win. If a third party candidate gets enough votes to garner national attention that only helps to serve notice to the one party system we have now and it encourages voting for a third party candidate in the future.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well if Hilary can't inspire that 4 million to get off the couch and vote, nothing ever will.

 

[Hkindiana]

Remember, YOUR vote for president does not mean diddly! Every man, women, and "other", could vote for a particular presidential candidate and it DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD WIN.

 

[Dosproduction]

There was NO one conservative to vote for out of democrats and republicans in 2012. Of coarse they stayed home. This year looks like the republicans are going to field another democrat so once again there will be no one that is conservative to vote for. Of coarse all those votes could have been put on the 3rd party and that would have helped them get into the debates which will be the only thing that stops the 2 party system from destroying this country. If you voted for Mitt in 2012 then do us all a favor and stay home. YOU R THE PROBLEM.

 

[Bfish]

Well if Hilary can't inspire that 4 million to get off the couch and vote, nothing ever will.

I gotta say I think you are right! It'll be an interesting to see what things look like this time next year!

 

[ajeandy]

Pretty sure Mitt Romney is a dipsh*t and that's why he didn't win.

 

[jamil]

Pretty sure Mitt Romney is a dipsh*t and that's why he didn't win.

Of course that's an individual assessment shared by many voters. If Romney would have been a little less Morman and less rich he may have won. If the press were a little more honest he may have won. I think from the last debate on is where Romney lost it.

 

[Twangbanger]

I think the first point to get from this, is simply an epistemological understanding of the belief that "Conservatives stayed home" in 2012. They did not.

It's been offered many times that Republicans cannot win, because if the candidate is anything less than a red-meat firebreather, then a big chunk of their electorate will stay home. You can believe that if you want, but the data indicate that this is simply not true. It's opinion; there's nothing factual to support it.

A lot of different types of people stayed home. But it was not unique to Conservatives, and in fact, a closer reading of the facts indicates that the Right Wing of the party pretty much had "all hands on deck" for this election, to try to get rid of Obama. But it simply was not enough. This brings us to what Kut said, which is getting very close to the truth, I think:

Well if Hilary can't inspire that 4 million to get off the couch and vote, nothing ever will.

It may be that with all hands on deck, it is simply demographically impossible for Republicans to win _Presidential_ elections (ie, the elections where the "Dancing With the Stars" peanut gallery comes to play). Unless: the GOP grows its base in some way. The author above suggests that un-engaged Evangelicals could be one source of untapped votes. There may be others; something, anything, to counter the additional "ghetto" votes the Democrats are harvesting from Early Vote ground attacks.

The conclusion I draw from this, is that absent substantial party growth by bringing new voters off the sidelines (the author suggests these would need to be people who have never voted before), we are free to vote our conscience. We have crossed that tipping point, past which all these discussions of "throwing your vote away" cease to have any significance. How can you throw your vote away, when that outcome which you are supposedly "throwing away," was not even winnable for you in the first place?

I'll enter this as another theory why Trump has shown such durability: the GOP voter isn't trying to "win," anymore. They aren't concerned about "throwing their vote away," because they believe they cannot win the game as currently-rigged, anyway. They simply can't throw away, that which they no longer have. If we lose, so what? We were going to anyway. Spend a dollar on a lottery ticket: roll the dice and take a chance on shaking things up, something...anything, that might get us out of where we are.

 

[DragonGunner]

Well lets face it…about 50% stay at home anyway and don't vote every election so why even bring up 4 million conservatives, there were plenty of liberals that didn't vote for Barry the second time. The republicans didn't offer a conservative last election so I wrote in Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party that was a conservative. Wish more voters would forget their "party" and vote for who is best and represents them the best. But sheep keep voting either R or D and nothing gets better. Both evil parties have helped to destroy America, they each just want to do it in a different way, but both agree the best way is to keep growing the debt and keep borrowing until we crumble. Hows that working?

 

[Libertarian01]

The problem with ALL of this is that it has become a damned "personality" contest! It isn't who has the best platform, or who is the wisest, or has the most experience: it is who looks good and speaks well!

Senator Bob Doll was about as palatable as wet cardboard during the election, so he lost. After the election he had some seriously personal moments that had they come out during the election I believe the numbers would have been radically changed. He still may not have won but he sure as heck would have received more votes.

Look back at the only time we can, or ever will, see proof of the "likability" factor coming into play. It was the 1960 Nixon / Kennedy debate. The majority of voters who listened to the debate on the radio said Nixon won, while a small majority who watched the debate on television said Kennedy won. Kennedy was more likable than Nixon.

The same thing has been happening with greater and greater impact on today's elections. Yes, there is a group of both liberal and conservative voters that will hold their breath, sit in their rooms and pout that their "perfect" candidate didn't get the nomination. They will stay home and not vote.

Then you have one issue voters. There are those who would vote for the Antichrist so long as he was opposed to gun control / abortion / gay rights / etc. These folks are about as useless as t*** on a boar. But they exist, and they vote (or don't vote.) I would be willing to bet that there is an equal percentage of these folks in both liberal and conservative camps.

I believe the largest problem facing the republican party is the idea of "conservative" itself. Too many throw this word around as an all encompassing meaning when folks really need to clarify: are you fiscally conservative, socially conservative, or both? I am very fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Thus, the republican party lost me long ago. (It also didn't help them when I realized they weren't really fiscally conservative either.) However, the socially conservative voters are extremely devout voters and they pull their party in a direction that the whole of the country is NOT going in! I am making no judgement here, just stating what I believe is an undeniable fact. So when they demand socially conservative politicians run at the national level, it is like putting a weight on their back and telling them to swim. It isn't that they cannot win, but rather that it is a lot harder for them to win.

This is not to say that the republicans could not field a winning candidate who is a very devout church goer and win the national election. This then comes back to personal charisma and likability. Who in the race has that?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Arthur Dent]

Well lets face it…about 50% stay at home anyway and don't vote every election so why even bring up 4 million conservatives, there were plenty of liberals that didn't vote for Barry the second time. The republicans didn't offer a conservative last election so I wrote in Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party that was a conservative. Wish more voters would forget their "party" and vote for who is best and represents them the best. But sheep keep voting either R or D and nothing gets better. Both evil parties have helped to destroy America, they each just want to do it in a different way, but both agree the best way is to keep growing the debt and keep borrowing until we crumble. Hows that working?

A voice of reason.

 

[Lowe0]

something, anything, to counter the additional "ghetto" votes the Democrats are harvesting from Early Vote ground attacks.

If a significant part of the electorate feels that one party better represents their interests, and they turn out to vote for that party, isn't that a good thing?

 

[BugI02]

The problem with ALL of this is that it has become a damned "personality" contest! It isn't who has the best platform, or who is the wisest, or has the most experience: it is who looks good and speaks well!

Senator Bob Doll was about as palatable as wet cardboard during the election, so he lost. After the election he had some seriously personal moments that had they come out during the election I believe the numbers would have been radically changed. He still may not have won but he sure as heck would have received more votes.

Look back at the only time we can, or ever will, see proof of the "likability" factor coming into play. It was the 1960 Nixon / Kennedy debate. The majority of voters who listened to the debate on the radio said Nixon won, while a small majority who watched the debate on television said Kennedy won. Kennedy was more likable than Nixon.

The same thing has been happening with greater and greater impact on today's elections. Yes, there is a group of both liberal and conservative voters that will hold their breath, sit in their rooms and pout that their "perfect" candidate didn't get the nomination. They will stay home and not vote.

Then you have one issue voters. There are those who would vote for the Antichrist so long as he was opposed to gun control / abortion / gay rights / etc. These folks are about as useless as t*** on a boar. But they exist, and they vote (or don't vote.) I would be willing to bet that there is an equal percentage of these folks in both liberal and conservative camps.

I believe the largest problem facing the republican party is the idea of "conservative" itself. Too many throw this word around as an all encompassing meaning when folks really need to clarify: are you fiscally conservative, socially conservative, or both? I am very fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Thus, the republican party lost me long ago. (It also didn't help them when I realized they weren't really fiscally conservative either.) However, the socially conservative voters are extremely devout voters and they pull their party in a direction that the whole of the country is NOT going in! I am making no judgement here, just stating what I believe is an undeniable fact. So when they demand socially conservative politicians run at the national level, it is like putting a weight on their back and telling them to swim. It isn't that they cannot win, but rather that it is a lot harder for them to win.

This is not to say that the republicans could not field a winning candidate who is a very devout church goer and win the national election. This then comes back to personal charisma and likability. Who in the race has that?

Regards,

Doug

So Team America:World Police was RIGHT! Any successful team has to have a charismatic actor.

 

[jamil]

If a significant part of the electorate feels that one party better represents their interests, and they turn out to vote for that party, isn't that a good thing?

You act like election season is an intellectually honest affair.

 

[INPatriot]

They are out there. Nobody knows how many there are, but they are out there. It could be 1,000,000, it could be 10,000,000. We all know 5, 10 or 20 people that get frustrated and choose not to participate. They buy American, they want the government out of their lives, they are traditional-minded, they are patriotic and they feel screwed with attaching themselves to the victim class.

There was an article just last week, most Americans feel ostracized in America. Big government wants to take away Americans' rights to defend themselves, their families and their property but they want to arm the Iranians with nuclear weapons. There are hungry and homeless Americans, hungry and homeless Veterans, but politicians in WDC want to bring in Syrian "refugees" (to establish a permanent voting class) that do not even fight for their own country and will live on the American taxpayer.

There are millions of Americans that are sick of being called racists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. They are sick of being castigated for loving America, being patriotic and believing in American Exceptionalism.

It is up to the candidates running to make that appeal to voters that feel disenfranchised. With all of that said, much of the blame for all of this can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the national GOP. They have found a way to intercourse the canine most every opportunity they get. The inability to actually be the party of limited government has turned a lot of people away. However, the way our political system works, a vote for any third party on the national level is a vote for the Democrat Party...a party which will NOT be the party of constitutional and limited government, personal responsibility and strong national defense anytime soon.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If a significant part of the electorate feels that one party better represents their interests, and they turn out to vote for that party, isn't that a good thing?

No. We have to take America back. From other Americans. I guess.

Of course, if you try to take America back from illegal immigrants, then you're a fool who will crash our economy when radishes go up 2 cents in the grocery store.

 

[BugI02]

If a significant part of the electorate feels that one party better represents their interests, and they turn out to vote for that party, isn't that a good thing?

Not if the party that better represents a significant part of the electorate's interests does so by confiscating from those who work to prop up those who don't/won't.