Some Interesting Voting Trends that are Scaring Democrats

Liberals were out in force on the Sunday talk-show circuit explaining why Republicans lost and what they should do to reverse the trend. Why would they be trying to help the opposition party? These guys and gals know why the Republicans lost: They didn’t appeal to their conservative base. Knowing this, they want the GOP to go more centrist (liberal). If the Republicans do, they will doom the party. That’s what liberals want.

The Democrat pundits maintain that it was conservative “special interest” groups that hurt the party. What? The Democrat Party is made up of special interest voters: Latinos, Blacks, homosexuals, single women, college students, Jews, Muslims, Asians, abortion advocates, and contraception freeloaders. You name the group, and the Democrats have a special interest category.

The one group Republicans did not appeal to was conservatives made up of Tea Party advocates, pro-lifers, and promoters of traditional marriage. Keep in mind that there are only 3.4 percent of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people in America. Prior to this election, 30 states had upheld traditional – one man/one woman marriage. The GOP ignored these voters to its electoral peril.

Digging deeper in the voting statistics, I found some curious things. Even with all the special interest groups that voted for Obama, he only won by 3 percentage points. Consider the following and why it’s worrying Democrats:

While there was a gender gap, the biggest in any election, Romney did better among women than John McCain did in 2008. “Romney also outperformed McCain among men in this election – in 2008 Obama and McCain split the male vote.”

More than 85 percent of Muslims voted for Obama, but that was down 4 percentage points from 2008.

There was a voter drop off for Obama compared to 2008:

“Obama received 10 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, and Romney received around 3 million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. Overall voter turnout is just under 14 million fewer voters than 2008, and 9 million fewer than 2004.”

Can the above numbers translate into a Democrat victory in 2016 when Obama will no longer be on the ticket? This is a key issue that a lot of people are not considering. Some Democrats see it. If the GOP has any sense, it will embrace and reach out to its conservative base. The 2010 election is the model.

Liberals have been denouncing the GOP as being the Party of Angry White Men. Super liberal and sometime nutcase Alec Baldwin wrote that the reelection of President Obama singled “the end of white, middle-aged, Christian male dominance.” Who will the Democrats put up in 2016? Hillary Clinton? So who will a 69-year-old white woman attract?

Look what happened in 2010 when Obama was not on the ticket. The Republicans literally cleaned house. It was that election that helped to keep Obama from implementing more of his radicalized agenda.

Republican voters didn’t stay home because Romney was too conservative; they stayed home because he was not conservative enough or at least did not make a push to attract conservative voters.

Consider this from Tony Lee at Breitbart:

“David Plouffe, one of the Obama campaign’s most senior advisers, said [that] the Obama administration’s vaunted ground game and data sets could not be transferred to generic Democrats. Plouffe’s comments suggest that Election Day was more about Obama’s appeal to liberal voters than an ascendancy of liberalism, which many pundits and journalists have been claiming in the election’s wake.

The NAACP seems to agree. NAACP President Ben Jealous told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Democrats “must quickly figure out how to motivate these voters who – if Obama is not at the top of the ticket – simply go away.”

The Republicans have four years to validate the claim, but they won’t do it by rejecting their base. The Democrats are being so helpful in offering suggestions of what Republicans should do to win a national election. Why would they do that? Because they know it’s a losing strategy. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is advising Republicans to abandon their pro-life base. Thanks for the help. Libertarian leaning Neal Bortz has been harping on this issue for decades. Abandoning the pro-life position would be the death knell to the Republican Party.

Let’s say the Republicans drop opposition to homosexual marriage and abortion and a few other Democrat mainstays? Why bother voting for Republicans when you can get all these things form the Democrats plus the benefits of the welfare state?

Romney may have been a conservative, but he did not run on the Republican platform, the most conservative platform ever to come out of a convention. He was afraid of media attacks. If Romney had appealed to the real Republican based, he would be the president-elect instead of being “shell shocked” at his loss.

Previous post

What do the Poorest 10 Cities in America Have in Common?

Next post

CBS Commentator Wants Abortions to Lower White Voter Population