Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So in what world is 1,203,403 smaller than 1,095,917??
I get that the more liberal media has been harping on voter turnout at ever possible opportunity. This time, they obviously spoke too soon.
Voter turnout, even with an additional 100,000 or so over 2008, is still relatively weak for the GOP. Compare your numbers for 2012 GOP Ohio numbers to the 2008 Democratic Ohio numbers and you can see that the enthusiasm gap is very real for the GOP.
2008 Ohio Democratic Primary
1,259,620 Clinton
1,055,769 Obama
Note that Clinton alone garnered more votes in 2008 than the entire GOP field this year combined, and Obama came close to that as well. Combined, they blow the GOP out of the water.
The media doesn't invent the numbers. Turnout is weak for the GOP. It was for front runner McCain in 2008 (who still managed a decisive victory in Ohio, dwarfing Romney's "win" this year by more than 200,000 votes) and it is for this year's GOP slate as well. Any way you slice it, there seems to be very little real enthusiasm for Republicans in 2012.
We've heard a lot from political pundits lately about how long and drawn out this race has been. This got me curious: How valid is that assertion? So I went back to see where we were at in 2008.
The first big differences was that Super Tuesday was in early February and not early March. The other important thing to consider was that two huge states voted on that Super Tuesday: California and New York. So it was a true make or break. This year's Super Tuesday wasn't built to be a make or break.
If we throw out California and New York, here's where the numbers were 4 years ago: McCain: 481
Romney: 277
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
So here is where we are right now: Romney: 404
Santorum: 165
Gingrich: 106
Paul: 66
Now once you throw New York and California totals back into the post Super Tuesday tally, it looked like this in 2008: McCain: 740
Romney: 289
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
It's obvious why Romney dropped out at that point. The really strange thing was that Huckabee didn't.
If anyone thinks that the GOP race has dragged on for too long, it must be pointed out that it was by design. Romney's lead proportionally speaking is larger post Super Tuesday than McCain's was. But because all thee big states haven't voted yet, nobody is going to drop out. But the whole line that Santorum is doing well and Romney is under-performing just doesn't jive with the numbers we have. Romney is having a stronger showing so far than McCain did in 2008. The problem is that the GOP designed this thing to drag on and on and on and on. Super Tuesday went from "Super" to "Meh." There were a lot more delegates at stake four years ago.
So what's with all the MSNBC and CNN talking heads going on about how Romney isn't having a strong enough showing?
And from a purely pro Ron Paul point of view, we can obviously see that he's getting a lot more interest this time around than last time. We'll get the rest of you eventually, it's just a matter of time!
of course Paul is getting a lot more interest, that was never in doubt, but certianly not enough to make any serious difference and he still hasn't won a state, most likely will not...
of course Paul is getting a lot more interest, that was never in doubt, but certianly not enough to make any serious difference and he still hasn't won a state, most likely will not...
Sure, but two virtual ties ain't bad at all. Just imagine if Ron Paul had won Iowa. That may have changed the entire game. The fact that he came so very close to doing exactly that is quite telling I think.
Ultimately, I'm an oddball amongst the RP faithful. I consider getting rid of Barack Obama a big priority and I'll most likely vote for the GOP nominee in order to make that happen. But it's still settling for "the lesser of two evils" which I don't like one bit. As I see it, since Ron Paul probably doesn't get the nomination this year, you gotta take lemons and make lemonade.
The movement is growing and it will continue to grow because it interrupts "that's just how things are done" nonsense with common sense alternatives.
Sure, but two virtual ties ain't bad at all. Just imagine if Ron Paul had won Iowa. That may have changed the entire game. The fact that he came so very close to doing exactly that is quite telling I think.
Ultimately, I'm an oddball amongst the RP faithful. I consider getting rid of Barack Obama a big priority and I'll most likely vote for the GOP nominee in order to make that happen. But it's still settling for "the lesser of two evils" which I don't like one bit. As I see it, since Ron Paul probably doesn't get the nomination this year, you gotta take lemons and make lemonade.
The movement is growing and it will continue to grow because it interrupts "that's just how things are done" nonsense with common sense alternatives.
We are on opposite sides of who we support but agree on one thing: we will support the Republican regardless of who it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
