Where were those "Romney Democrats?"

[JoeB131]

Hey, one of the big argument proposed by FakeSnarkey and other RINO's supporting Mitt Romney is that conservatives should abandon their principles on the theory that Mitt Romney is "electable".

He's going to bring in all those Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama last time and get them to vote Republican this time. Really. No, really. That's their claim.

Romney's 2008 Vote total - 30,021
Romney's 2012 Vote total- 30,015

Assuming- logically, that most of these people who voted for him in 2008 are the same ones voting for him in 2012, where are all these independents who voted for a Democrat last time. I mean, you had no contest on the Democratic side, and a lot of supposedly upset people who are finding the whole "Hope and Change" thing to be a dry well.

None of the 93,952 who voted for Obama, the 74,377 who voted for Edwards or the 73,663 who voted for Clinton decided to show up and vote for Romney this time. Not even to come over and cause a little trouble.

Actually, the whole Caucus should have the GOP worried. Overall, there was only a 1% increase over participation in 2008, and most of that is probably college kids voting for Ron Paul so he'd legalize their weed.

But, no, no, let's call the whole thing over after one caucus. That makes sense.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Heck where were the Paul Democrats? He got like third place? Can't count on a Dem for CRAP!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

 

[JoeB131]

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

It's an open caucus, all they have to do is change their party affiliation for the day.

But the point of the Fakes and the Amelias is that Romney is going to attract all these people out of the Democratic Tent and into the Republican one.

Well, last night would have been a good place to start.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

It's an open caucus, all they have to do is change their party affiliation for the day.

But the point of the Fakes and the Amelias is that Romney is going to attract all these people out of the Democratic Tent and into the Republican one.

Well, last night would have been a good place to start.

It's not an "open" caucus. That would mean anyone, regardless of party, could vote.

If someone registers as a Republican the day of the caucus, at that moment they cease being a "Democrat" or an "Independent". Party registration doesn't reset the following day.

 

[Avatar4321]

Heck where were the Paul Democrats? He got like third place? Can't count on a Dem for CRAP!

That's why he placed third. lol

 

[JoeB131]

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

It's an open caucus, all they have to do is change their party affiliation for the day.

But the point of the Fakes and the Amelias is that Romney is going to attract all these people out of the Democratic Tent and into the Republican one.

Well, last night would have been a good place to start.

It's not an "open" caucus. That would mean anyone, regardless of party, could vote.

If someone registers as a Republican the day of the caucus, at that moment they cease being a "Democrat" or an "Independent". Party registration doesn't reset the following day.

Okay- again. Nobody changed their registration for that day to vote for Romney. Remember, the whole Romney argument is that he's going to attract people who voted for Obama last time (which is a tall order, getting anyone to admit a mistake) to vote for him this time.

but none of them did. He got the same 30K people to show up. Or probably mostly the same 30K people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Romney's 2008 Vote total - 30,021
Romney's 2012 Vote total- 30,015

That is rather remarkable, and telling.

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

True, but that’s not the point of the OP, at least how I’m reading it: if Romney can’t muster significantly more republican votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, how can republicans expect democrats and independents to vote for Romney in the General if republicans themselves aren’t excited about their candidate.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney's 2008 Vote total - 30,021
Romney's 2012 Vote total- 30,015

That is rather remarkable, and telling.

"Democrats" and "Independants" don't vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus.

True, but that’s not the point of the OP, at least how I’m reading it: if Romney can’t muster significantly more republican votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, how can republicans expect democrats and independents to vote for Romney in the General if republicans themselves aren’t excited about their candidate.

I think there is a bit more than that.

The thing is not only didn't Romney get more votes, BUT overall, the GOP didn't get more votes. Independents are allowed to vote in Republican caucuses in Iowa, and supposedly, a lot of Democrats changed their registration to Republican. But there were no more votes cast in 2012 than 2008, and the opinion of Romney remains the same, most don't really want him.

I've always said, the Romney "electability" is a myth. He's lost most of the elections he's ever run in, even when running against weak opponents. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry all have vastly better success rates.

 

[editec]

Where were those "Romney Democrats?"

Perhaps...

Mama's in the factory, she aint got no shoes
Daddy's in the alley, he's lookin' for food
I'm in the kitchen with the tombstone blues?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6k6ky14x3Y]Tombstone Blues - Bob Dylan - YouTube[/ame]