John Giokaris Final note to my recent math. As I said before, matching Bush's white voter turnout rate in 2004 wouldn't have been enough for Romney to win in 2012. But matching Bush's white voter turnout in 2004 + Bush's share of the Latino vote would've given Romney 50.8% of the popular vote and a 3.6% greater share of the vote nationwide. That would've been a scenario where Romney had won the popular vote but (still) barely lost the Electoral College by 1 state. Assuming Romney would've gotten a 3.6% greater share of the vote in every battleground state, he would've won FL, OH and VA would've been so close they probably would've had a recount. But it STILL wouldn't have been enough to overcome his deficits in CO, PA, NH, IA and NV - and he wouldn't needed at least 1 of those to win the Electoral College. The bottom line is still the same: the GOP had to do BETTER than Bush in 2004, but matching Bush's white voter turnout + Latino voter share would've made it the closest election in U.S. history.
John Giokaris After crunching the numbers all day, I've concluded that even if Romney had matched Bush's voter turnout in 2004 - best case scenario - the popular vote would've split down the middle 50/50 but Obama still would've won the Electoral College. As I explained below, the most optimistic number of white voters who stayed home was 5 million. Assuming all 5 million would've voted GOP, that would've tied the popular vote in the closest election in history: 65.9 million vs. 65.9 million and would've given Romney a 2.8% greater share of the vote nationwide. Assuming Romney would've gotten 2.8% more of the vote in every battleground state, he only would've won FL, barely lost OH and wouldn't have won any other state. Not enough to win the Electoral College. Even if he had won OH & VA (the next closest 2), he still would've fallen 1 state short of victory. Bottom line: the Obama campaign's GOTV machine in battleground states was truly impressive. And the GOP would've had to do BETTER than 2004.
John Giokaris I'd like to add an update. All day long I've been trying to lock down a hard number of how much a 3% difference of white voter turnout between 2004 and 2012 is. It's been difficult. The most optimistic number I've seen is 5 million voters. If true, it's impossible to say if all 5 million of those voters would've been GOP votes. Whites broke for Romney 60%-40%, so we're really talking an extra 3 million potential Romney votes, which still wouldn't have been enough to beat Obama's 66 million popular vote win. For argument's sake, let's assume the best case scenario that indeed 5 million white voters stayed home in 2012 and that all 5 million would've voted for Romney. That would've tied the popular vote at 66 million a piece, but the question is were all of those potential 3-5 million Romney votes concentrated in states needed to win: such as OH, FL, VA and IA or CO or NV. All 3-5 million? Hard to say. But as far as the Electoral College goes, Obama beat Romney by less than 1 million.
John Giokaris Totally understand, I'm sure we have disagreements politically. But as long as we're respectful and thoughtful that's all that matters in the end! I'm in the middle of Chicago, believe me, my friends come from all over the political spectrum. I was just grabbing drinks with an Illinois Democratic staffer the other day. I'm the same way too re: passionate subjects. I can't write articles on topics I've been assigned 90% of the time. It's gotta be something I'm genuinely interested in :-)
John Giokaris Look we know white voter turnout (60% GOP) was down 3% from 2004. All I'm saying is your claim that it was "all because Fox News/conservative media pundits have influence over this 3% - who all happened to be in battleground states - and told them not to vote for Romney during the primaries AND not to vote for him during the general election" is a bit of a stretch. I'm more inclined to believe that the Obama campaign's negative messaging against Romney had more of an influence in the 3% drop than anything Rush Limbaugh said. Obama went into Election Day with a 53% favorability rating and Romney with a 50% unfavorability rating and you're telling me it was more cuz of conservative media than liberal media? Completely ignoring the six months of campaigning in between winning the nomination and the general election? Sorry, I don't buy it.
John Giokaris Voter turnout on the Dems' side, yes. Kerry won 10.25 million votes in the swing states vs. 12 million for Obama in 2012. Black voter turnout (93% Democrat) jumped from 60% in 2004 to 66% in 2012.
John Giokaris Really? Then how do you explain the fact that those who work in media donate to Democrats 6 times more than they do Republicans? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/democrats-republicans-entertainment-donations-364802 Or the fact that journalists consistently vote Democrat by 80%-90% every election, even landslide losers like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis? http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
John Giokaris "There were more battleground states in this election than any in recent history." Not really. There was a time when every state was up for grabs, as recently as the 1990s. The number of battleground states is actually getting lower and lower. The reason why the Romney campaign lost the battleground states is because they didn't aggressively register as many voters and get them to the polls and quickly and as conveniently as the Obama campaign did, pure and simple. The Obama campaign had buses waiting at Obama rallies/speeches to take voters to the polls to vote early. Romney campaign didn't do that.
John Giokaris Pundits or contributors who appear for opinion/commentary don't "speak for the entire network." Those are individual opinions and commentators. How do you know voter turnout was lower in swing states than it was in those same states in 2004? I'd like to see the numbers please. Re: media, you missed my point: "Most people who watch cable news on a regular basis are already high information voters, and most high information voters have already made up their mind. However, there are plenty of persuadable low information voters who don’t watch cable news very much but do watch local broadcast news to find out what the weather will be in their area, traffic reports and/or sports scores. Any political news they get comes from their local affiliates. Or worse yet, some only get their news from late night comedy TV. Name one 'Fox News' version of that." Low information voters don't watch cable news (Fox, CNN or other) on a frequent basis. It's what makes them low information voters.
John Giokaris Thanks for the compliment, Frank. Interesting claim. How exactly was Fox News campaigning against Romney? I'm a pretty frequent viewer and I didn't see them endorsing anyone. I don't listen to any of the other pundits so I have no idea what they were saying. More importantly, even if what you say is true, what does it matter? Romney won the nomination. If you're asserting that white voter turnout was 3% lower than in 2004 because that 3% was "told not to vote for Romney" according to these media pundits that have absolute control over these voters, how do we know these voters were in battleground states where it would've mattered vs. in solid red states that Romney won anyway? I know for a fact that Romney won 1 million more votes than Bush in the red states, won the same amount of votes as Bush in the battleground states, and won 2 million less votes than Bush in the blue states that GOP never win (New York, California, Illinois, etc.). But all that matters is the swing states.
John Giokaris "GDP growth is lower now than it was under between 2003 & 2006," how did I not illustrate why that is in this piece? "Between 2007 & 2009 GDP was genuinely terrible," as what happens in any recession (check any of the last ten). "But GDP growth was also lower under Bush Jr than it was under Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter or even Ford!" GDP growth under W was actually pretty average. But the biggest spike in GDP growth of all those presidents was under Reagan, so how can you say tax cuts had nothing to do with it when he lowered the top income rate from 70% to 28% as well as the corporate rate from 48% to 35%? "Tax revenue was higher under Clinton too, so the point about tax cuts increasing the tax base isn't really well illustrated here." Again, I ask how? $1.9 tril in 2000 was worth $2.4 tril in 2008 (or $2.6 tril today). But in 2008, well after the Bush tax cuts were implemented, we were bringing in $2.7 tril (or $2.9 tril today). That's more, cuz of the economic growth.
John Giokaris Thank you Sam!! I was thinking the same thing when I read that article last night. The filmmakers are almost in denial, "How come people aren't liking our product? What's wrong with them?" No, what's wrong with YOU! Some films just suck. And Spielberg's idea of switching ticket prices on a progressive scale is just stupid. It's only going to hurt the successful films in the box office and won't make anyone want to go see a film that sucks just cuz it's any cheaper. I think we were witnessing two fossils who's day has come and gone. Totally agree, Minority Report was super awesome. It's been one of the rare gems over the last decade that still shines bright in an otherwise bland graveyard of films. I'm still enjoying today as much as when I first saw it in 2002.
John Giokaris You must not read PolicyMic very much then. For every right-leaning contributor there are about 10 more left-leaning ones. I simply wanted to illustrate how many criticisms Obama made (and was applauded for) against the Bush administration only to later do the same things now as president.
John Giokaris Cherie, For starters (and perhaps I should put a request in for a change at this point, considering many people have voiced their objection on this), the PM editorial board writes the headlines. My original headline read "...Obama and The American Public As Complete Hypocrites." The editorial board switched it to "Liberals." Second, re: "writing the rest of the article in a biased manner, only pointing out incidents in which Democratic supporters and politicians have switched positions," I only talked about one politician: the President. There's only one President right now and he happens to be a Democrat. This wasn't about every hypocrisy every politician has ever made. This article was specifically about Obama and I wanted to show how many criticisms he made (and was applauded for) against the Bush administration only to later do the same things now as President. Re: thwarted terror attacks, I agree with you. That part of my article was directed at civil liberties supporters
John Giokaris Part of it is SEO to promote more shares, views, Google hits, etc. Part of it is also just to grab more attention (the more strongly opinionated the headline is, the more traffic is gets).
John Giokaris Nope, just the truth again. I can't wait to hear your defense for this one. How many of your own articles are you gonna plug this time? I should be charging you for the free advertising space!