Tag Archive for election 2012

The numbers behind Obamas Re-election

Inside the number crunchers who helped Obama win:

In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama’s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.

So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama’s top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. “We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker,” explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker’s West Village brownstone.

For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. “We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign,” he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official “chief scientist” for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.

Historic black turnout in Ohio locked the deal:

President Barack Obama won reelection because he energized liberals and expanded the electorate by finding and turning out his base, especially black voters.
Nowhere was this more evident than in Ohio, where black turnout increased by four percentage points from 2008′s historic turnout number. In turn, they gave Democrats a whopping seven-point partisan advantage at the polls on election day and provided Obama with his margin of victory in the crucial swing state.

In 2012, blacks made up 15% of Ohio’s electorate, and Obama received 96% of their vote to Mitt Romney’s 4%.

In 2008, black turnout made up 11% of Ohio’s electorate, and Obama won blacks by 95 points (97%-2%) over John McCain.

In 2004, black voters accounted for 10% of the vote Ohio. John Kerry received 84% of the black vote, while George W. Bush received 16%, five points above Bush’s national average among blacks.

These numbers show that Romney’s team — even as comparisons between 2012 and 2004 were incessantly made throughout the election cycle — never learned the most valuable and simplest lesson from Bush’s 2004 operation: in a so-called “base” election, the candidate who galvanizes and energizes his base the most wins.

African Americans are one of Democrats’ most loyal voting blocs, and Obama’s historic candidacy — and reelection — surely energized them.

Unlike the Republican establishment and Mitt Romney’s campaign, Democrats did not alienate, demean, or make their base feel disrespected. Democrats cultivated their votes, which made it easier for the party to organize. Their base — like African Americans did in Ohio — often took it upon themselves to bring other Democrats to the polls.

333,000 votes in 4 states made the difference

Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%–not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted–Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.

The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.

Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s  327,870.

Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes  by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.

Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779

Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s  1,789,618.

Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.

Overall, voter turnout was down, from 131 million in 2008 to 122 million in 2012. Obama won 7.6 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, and Romney won 1.3 million fewer than McCain in 2008.

Romney improved his vote total’s over McCain’s by the slightest amount in three of these four states, but in Ohio, he actually had 81,000 fewer votes than McCain in 2008.

What do these facts tell us?

Both parties lost support of the population in the four years between 2008 and 2012. While Obama lost more support, he started with more, and he was able to hang on to enough of his base to overcome Romney’s inability to keep and expand his base.

Obama’s victory doesn’t constitute a mandate for his far left agenda to “transform America” into some nightmarish amalgam combining the worst features of a European socialist state with an Indonesian oligarchy.

This election was not about grand vision. It was about small details and focused pandering to specific demographic groups.

The Obama campaign performed its nationally divisive mission of small ball with excellence and focus. In contrast, the Romney campaign failed in the basic nuts and bolts of campaigning and lost focus on the four key states that mattered by diverting the candidate’s time and the campaign’s financial resources to states that didn’t matter.

Romneys loss margins in the following swing states:

Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

Obama’s margin in some other key states:

Nevada: 66,379

Iowa: 88,501

New Hampshire: 40,659


Jewish voters trickling towards Romney

This “man on the street” interview montage shows that Brooklyn Jews will “obviously” vote for Romney while blacks in the same area have the same default to Obama.

New Yorks 6ths GOP congressional candidate wants to “save Jerusalem from Obama and Arabs”.

Obama attracts 53% of likely Jewish voters in average of IBD polls.

A Chicago Jewish newspaper has also endorsed Romney. From Mitt Romney’s site:

“It is not only that Mr. Obama thus deserves to be a one-term proposition; it is that Mr. Romney is simply the better bet for our country.” – Chicago Jewish Star

For President: Romney

Chicago Jewish Star


October 19, 2012

In many ways this is still a post-9/11 world. The threat of Islamic terror, a depressed and failing economy, an unsure future for a troubled healthcare system, a genocidal-spewing Iran, an unbalanced Middle East- these are some of the problems which surfaced after that fateful September day and mutated afterwards in unexpected ways.

With his executive experience, belief in the enervating potential of the private sector, proven ability to deal with opposing views, positive outlook and quiet but admirable religious and charitable persona, Mitt Romney is the candidate who can best guide our country in the years ahead.

We like Mr. Romney- and strongly endorse his candidacy for president- because of his moderate, small-government views

We like Mr. Romney because he is able to travel to a hot-bed area like Israel and- openly, unapologetically, and accurately- commend the Jewish state for its achievements, while frankly acknowledging that it is Palestinian recalcitrance which has denied peace to the area.

We like Mr. Romney because he understands the need to create jobs by providing the right environment for the private sector to do so.

Finally, we like Mr. Romney because he, and his running mate Paul Ryan, have announced that they believe in accountability. The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Finally we like Mr. Romney in comparison to his opponent. The administration of Barack Obama has been a failure.

Contrary to the implications of Mr. Obama’s 2008 statement, Americans provided for the sick before his time; the rise of the oceans did not begin “to slow” and our planet did not begin “to heal”- not in a metaphoric sense and not in a real one.

Mr. Obama’s unsatisfactory direction for America was rooted in untenable assumptions, fueled by arrogance, and promoted by divisiveness. We don’t need more of that.

It is not only that Mr. Obama thus deserves to be a one-term proposition; it is that Mr. Romney is simply the better bet for our country.

John McCain: Laughable to call Romney the “establishment” Candidate

Responding to a clip played on the Michael Medved Show John McCain mocks the Sarah Palin notion that Romney is the “establishment” Candidate, while avoiding any direct comment toward Palin herself other than to say that they were close and remain so.

Hugh Hewitt gives the following advice to Romney:

What should he do about his critics that call him the “Establishment’s choice?”

First, read them, like Kurt Schlicter, whose piece at Big Government nicely summarize the mindset of the GOP anti-Establishmentarians.

Second, say nothing about Newt.  Even his friends are writing in the past tense, and Saturday night’s presser was another disaster for the former Speaker.

Third, pick up the issue of the president’s assault on the Roman Catholic church, and use it not only to reaffirm your commitment to religious freedom but to demonstrate that you are aware of how much damage must be undone via executive order on day one.

Finally, everyone is aware of the president’s slashing of the Department of Defense, and now is the time to stay on message about your commitment to the military.  It won’t be long until MSM tries to trap you into refighting the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, but what is crucial is that you refuse that fight and insist on saying the obvious: That whatever arguments have occurred in the past, we can agree that these cuts imperil the nation’s security, that we need a 313 ship Navy and a robust Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, and that you will assure their budgets remain adequate to the tasks assigned them, which are difficult, many and increasing.

There’s a slice of the anti-Establishmentarians who are isolationists, but it is a very small slice.  A focus on national security brings the party back together and quickly.

Governor Rick Perry Not Flattered by Encouragement to Run for President

Bryan Preston wrote for Pajamas Media a piece titled Why Rick Perry Should Run For President, arguing:

Gov. Perry has been governor of the nation’s second largest state for 10 years, and was Lt Gov, Agriculture Commissioner and a legislator before that. Texas geography, population and economy make it larger than most countries, thus, experience at the helm of Texas is excellent preparation for the presidency. There is a negative in all that, that Perry can fairly be called a “career politician,” but he is one career politician who has a real record to tout and who has retained his deep skepticism of government as the source of all our answers. Texas under Perry’s watch has avoided the dire straits the other large states find themselves in, and it has consistently been the nation’s economic leader, creating more jobs and winning more accolades than any other state. Texas’ housing market has been the nation’s most stable during Perry’s watch, and Americans keep voting with their feet by making Texas the nation’s top interstate migration destination. Perry does not deserve all of the credit for this record, but he does deserve a good share of it, because during his tenure the often divided Texas government, in which 29 major offices are elected statewide, has functioned as a unified team with Perry in the lead. This team has kept Texas’ tax burden low despite hard times, and has kept Texas’ government among the smallest in the nation. Rick Perry is, as he is quick to mention, not George W. Bush. If he ran for president the comparison would be unavoidable, but Perry’s record is to the right of Bush’s. Perry is in many ways the man the liberals feared George W. Bush was, but Perry is a better stump speaker and has served in office at more levels than his predecessor.

Rush Limbaugh covered the prospect of a Perry candidacy on his radio show. Here is a partial transcript:

“Let me throw a name at you out there, and this person’s toying with getting in the race. And there are some Republicans who are trying to convince this person to get in the race, and there is a lot of excitement attached to the possibility that this person will get in the race. Well, who do you think I’m talking about? You have a look on your face in there as though you know who I’m talking about. Texas Governor Rick

Perry. Texas Governor Rick Perry is lurking out there, and he has the potential to light this up…

“Now, Rick Perry used to be soft on immigration, now he’s not. There’s no way you’re gonna hear Rick Perry supporting amnesty in any way, shape, manner, or form. He’s solid on that, plus pro-life. Rick Perry stands in opposition to inside the Beltway Washington elites, I don’t care what party they are. And he’s got great hair. Folks, we gotta put a picture of Rick Perry up on our website, if you haven’t seen him. It’s axiomatic, you are not going to be elected president unless you’ve got at least a ten inch part in your hair, preferably 14-inch. You can’t be bald. It’s the same thing with television anchors. You’re never going to be a prime network news anchor unless you have a 14-inch part in your hair. Well, in the television age there are just certain realities that you can’t get around.

“But, I’ll tell you, liberals are gonna react to any Republican that’s… don’t make me say this again. Look, I’m gonna get in enough trouble with these Republicans. Snerdley wants to know how the liberals are gonna react with another Texas governor. They’re gonna go nuts. So what? Let ‘em. When are they ever not nuts? Look, Rick Perry is a strong fiscal conservative. There are people in Texas that wanted a state income tax. He fought it. Rick Perry’s the guy that tracked these Democrats that left the state down. Remember they ran out, just like the Wisconsin Democrats did. No, I’m not endorsing anybody. I’m just telling you he’s lurking out there. It’s why I’ve always tried to caution people, it’s way too early here to start throwing in the towel or thinking all’s lost regarding the presidential field. There’s other people that might decide to get in this thing, too. You never know.”

Perry finds the endorsement “not so flattering” for some reason:

Libertarian-Leaning Former Governor Announces Run for 2012

On the news, HotAir comments: Alternate headline: “New Ron Paul ready to take on old Ron Paul.” He’s pro-gay-marriage, pro-legalization of marijuana, pro-choice (which Paul is not), and very, very pro-veto when it comes to new spending bills. He’s the great libertarian hope, in other words — or he would be, if not for the fact that the other great libertarian hope is probably also running next year. And even if Paul pere ends up passing, Paul fils might well end up taking his place. I wish all three would run, if only because the debates would be enormously entertaining. Who’s the laissez fairest of them all?

More background on Johnson can be seen in this Reason.tv interview: