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.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,090,420 times
Reputation: 3937
While taking my girl to school today I did see a Santorum sign in a person's front yard...he better save it for Ebaying later because it appears to be a one of a kind
Nearly half of Illinois residents live in Cook County; the population in Cook is almost equal to all the rest of the counties in Illinois combined. So the fact that more Republican votes came from Cook than any other county is not at all surprising. And still, Cook is overwhelmingly Democratic, so again, I don't see this as good news for Romney.
Please elaborate. I think it's good that Romney can win in Democratic areas. It helped Obama that he could win in Republican areas in the 2008 Dem Primary whereas Hillary was winning the deep-blue bastions of the Democratic Party. I'm glad Romney can win suburban voters - they decide elections. Not rural voters. Not urban voters. And rural voters always have better turnout than urban voters, especially now that the urban voters are not nearly as enthused about Obama as they were in 2008. This whole idea of rural voters not voting in November is ridiculous.
Not to mention, the majority of the counties Romney won last night are Republican counties. Looking at historical elections, Cook is about the only reliably Dem county, along with a couple others in Southern Illinois (That is not to say there aren't others that do go Dem, just not reliably). Please refer to my previous post https://www.city-data.com/forum/23495897-post68.html
Last night, Romney won in rural counties, suburban counties, urban counties alike. He won in reliably red, purple, and blue counties alike. However, even if that is not enough to put the dem's narrative to rest - let me once again point out (though I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears again) that Romney is winning Republicans in these blue counties. He didn't win Cook county because Democrats voted for him, he won it because Republicans did. Who cares if those Republicans happen to live around lots of Dems? How does that make them any less Republican? It doesn't.
Let me clarify - we keep hearing that the Republican base is rural voters. This is not true. The Republican base is suburban Republicans, as that is where most Republicans live. Romney is winning the actual base.
Please elaborate. I think it's good that Romney can win in Democratic areas. It helped Obama that he could win in Republican areas in the 2008 Dem Primary whereas Hillary was winning the deep-blue bastions of the Democratic Party.
This is actually a very good analysis here. I remember 2008 all too well. Obama got ahead by winning in places that, in November, were off the table for Democrats (KS, ID, ND, SD, GA, SC), while Clinton was winning the big liberal and some 'swing states' (CA, MA, NY, OH, PA). In the end, what happened? The deep blue states that voted for Clinton in the primary voted for Obama in the general election.
Anyone who wants to claim that Romney losing MS, KS, or OK means he won't win those states in November is simply uninformed or just plain stupid. The fact is - to win in states like OH and PA, you must win suburban votes. The last time a Republican carried PA (1988) was because Bush Sr. won the Philadelphia suburbs. It wasn't because he won the rural areas. Same will be true for this coming election. For Romney to secure victory, he cannot rely on huge turnout in, for example, rural Ohio. He needs to siphon votes from the Cleveland and Cincinnati suburbs. I do agree he also needs to make some in-roads on blue collar workers (some in urban, some suburban) areas. But that is achievable, especially once we end this primary season.
One other thing about the turnout - it's been a while since an Illinois primary really meant anything. So the turnout last night was good to see.
Hubby was saying something smilar this morning: sorta like, what difference does Ill make for the Republicans? They won't carry the state in Nov anyway.
Hubby was saying something smilar this morning: sorta like, what difference does Ill make for the Republicans? They won't carry the state in Nov anyway.
It was the lowest voter turnout for Presidential Primary in 70 years. Not a lot of GOP enthusiasm in Illinois.
It was the lowest voter turnout for Presidential Primary in 70 years. Not a lot of GOP enthusiasm in Illinois.
That is actually not correct. From reports I have read, turnout was more than it was in 2008. There were 899,422 votes cast in 2008 and this year there were 907,912 cast.
Why do people lie about things that are so easy to fact check? I just heard Newt on Hannity's radio show say that turnout was low because of Romney and Hannity didn't even attempt to correct him. I had to promptly turn the station to keep from puking with Hannity's kissing Newt's old butt. What is wrong with these media idiots?
It was the lowest voter turnout for Presidential Primary in 70 years. Not a lot of GOP enthusiasm in Illinois.
Not a lot of Obama enthusiasm either. I remember in 2008, so many people had signs, etc. Now there is nothing except senate and local support.
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.
