RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Low Voter Turnout, My Ass — UPDATE

The media, desperate to promote the candidacy of Barack Obama, is spreading a bald-face lie–that Republican voters are not interested and turnout is low.

Take yesterday’s primary in Illinois. CBS Chicago was out early with this dire assessment:

Voter Turnout Extremely Low For Illinois Primary

Turnout for Tuesday’s Illinois primary in Chicago was a meager 24 percent, officials said. It was the lowest turnout for a presidential primary in the past 70 years. Election officials said a lack of contested races was behind the lackluster activity at the polls.
“It’s very, very disappointing,” said Langdon Neal, chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. “I think what it indicates is that a lack of a contest on the Democratic side at the top of the ticket really did cause our voters not to be engaged in this election.”

The meme continues today. The AP, using the Washington Post as a propaganda platform, doubles down:

Mitt Romney’s methodical accumulation of Republican delegates is no thing of beauty, and the public is reacting in kind. The 2012 presidential race thus far is drawing rather tepid interest despite high stakes that include pivotal decisions about the weak economy and the fate of President Barack Obama’s massive health care overhaul.

Generally speaking, voter turnout, political fundraising and public curiosity are down compared with four years ago, when John McCain pulled away from Romney and others to secure the GOP nomination.

This is criminal, dishonest journalism. Why? Because Republicans generally are turned out in larger numbers this year than they did in 2008.

Unlike the morons at CBS, I can add. Let’s start with Illinois. I just ran the numbers for 2008 and Republicans cast a total of 899,422 votes. Today (as I write 99% of the votes are in) more than 917,046 Republicans turned out to vote.

How about Michigan? In 2008 there were 869,169. In 2012? 997,172.

Ohio? There were 1,062,276 votes in 2008 compared to 1,203,403.

Surely the voters in Alabama and Mississippi were bored to tears. Right? Think again.

Mississippi turned out 143,286 in 2008 but doubled the number in 2012, with 289,935 going to the polls.

Similar phenomena in Alabama. 2008 saw 552,155 go to the polls. In 2012 the number soared to 621,742.

And finally, South Carolina. 431,196 Republicans voted in 2008 while 601,205 showed up in 2012.

What reason other than deliberate misinformation explains why the media is pushing a total lie that, “The 2012 presidential race thus far is drawing rather tepid interest?” There are lies and there are damned lies. This qualifies as the latter.

In these six contests alone almost 700,000 more voters have shown up at the polls in 2012 than they did in 2008.

That tells me there is more Republican interest today than four years ago.

Florida and Virginia appear to be the only exception to this trend. I understand why fewer voters turned out in Virginia (there were fewer candidates on the ballot). Florida had fewer candidates on the 2012 ballot than the 2008. But even with “tepid” turnout in Florida and Virginia, the broader trend is that the number of Republican voters showing up to vote in 2012 is significantly larger than in 2008.

The real story is that Democrat turnout is low; very low. They have no reason to show up at a primary. Not surprising since the contest for the Democrat nomination is not a contest. Only one candidate.

Why the deliberate disinformation? The media and the Democrats are scared to death of what is coming in November. Instead of reporting a larger turnout of Republicans the media is choosing to push the fallacious meme that turnout is low. That is total BULLSHIT! Remains to be seen whether the larger Republican turnout will continue in the fall, but I am willing to bet that the desire to get rid of Barack Obama is so strong that Republicans and Independents will be flooding the polls.

UPDATE–You don’t have to accept my word. Do the numbers yourself. For 2008 go to this link http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TN.html. You can choose the state using the drop-down menu in the upper right corner.

For 2012 go here http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/calendar and click on the specific state.

DOUBLE UPDATE–Want further proof that this kind of info scares the shit out of the Dems and the Obama cheerleaders? Just look at the trolls we rounded up below. That’s known in the intel world as a “warning indicator.” When you kick them in the balls they squeal like castrated pigs.

FOLLOW-UP POST: “MORE ON THE MYTH OF LOW TURNOUT REPUBLICAN VOTERS.

  • Pingback: Shocker–Republican Voter Turnout Up : NO QUARTER

  • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

    The rule of thumb is that the more trolls you see, the worse the day’s news has been for the left.

  • Anonymous

    the BLACK COPTERS coming to get yer @rse leejay

  • Pingback: More on the Myth of Low Turnout Republican Voters : NO QUARTER

  • Anonymous

    It could mean a lot of things but agree with comments that the decline in turnout after eliminating independents and Democrats from the 2008 equation and looking at actual registered Republicans is worth keeping in mind when you hear reports of the “record” turnout.

  • Anonymous

    The numbers may be discouraging the Obama camp, but the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act is what is necessary right about now.   If he is discouraged then he should resign.   Otherwise the voters need to start telling the GOP candidates to concentrate on reinstating Glass Steagall and shutting down Wall Street and putting the FED and the other insolvent banks into liquidation and starting up a new National Bank to issue Credit uttered by congress for decent projects that will put all our people back to work, and make our republic more civilized.
      We need water management projects, we need to get food growing again so we will be able to eat, and livestock etc.  We need to build more nuclear power plants, and do research on even higher forms of energy production.  We need to deal with the climate change and send more satelintes up into space to monitor galactic conditions so we don’t get hit by meteorites and get affected by othere conditions that we can be prepared for if we take the time to find out what’s going on, because we will be affected badly by naturual disasters and we also have to make sure that the war with Iran and Syria doesn’t break out because they are but a prelude to World War Three which would be thermo Nuclear.   We need to get the GOP to learn to do the right thing instead of worrying about what Robert de Niro says.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DXEH5226VXYIM22E66OTQCVPRE Jacqueline S

    Some thoughts on Romney’s time as Governor:

    OK, you know that MA was 47th out of 50 for job creation under Romney:
    But did you know what the unemployment specifics were at the time:Took office Jan 2003: Unemployment @ 5.6%  (below nat avg)Left Office Jan 2007: Unemployment 4.6% (= nat avg)Here’s some other infoMA was hit hard by the dotcom bustWhen Romney took over, MA was losing jobsA year into his term, and MA stopped losing jobsEvery year from that point, added more jobs  (each year increased)

  • Anonymous

    Ok … Here is my deal… NO I do not support Romney. I just do not like the man. His public record does not match his private sector record.  Now saying that…he will get the nod and is the lesser of the evils….

    In the general…. He will loose by a photo finish….

    Romney
    His pros…
    1. Buku private sector experience….
    2. Buku organizational experience…
    3. Definitely a family oriented guy…
    4. Honest as the day is long…..
    5. Believes in his faith….
    6. Large campaign war chest…
    7. Surrounded by the best political handlers in the business…

    His Cons…
    1. His governmental record is mediocre at best…
    2. No foreign relations experience what so ever…
    3. About as charismatic as a fire hydrant….
    4. Surrounded by neocons….
    5. Is not a conservative…
    6. Limited details on all issue positions..
    7. DC Insider on the sophomore scale…
    8. Cut, cap and balance with no cut in defense nor revenue increases.
    9. Flip Flopped on positions as Governor….

    St. Rick
    His Pros…
    1. Family guy…
    2. Former US Senator and number 3 in the Senate…
    3. Believe in his faith…
    4. Charismatic on the campaign trail…

    His Cons..
    1. Very much a DC insider…
    2. Far right on foreign affairs…
    3. Limited details on all issue positions…
    4. Campaign money… What’s that?
    5. Far right positions on social services…
    6. Can’t go off script…
    7. Limited private sector experience…
    8. Cut, cap and balance with no cut in defense nor revenue increases.

    Noot…
    His Pros…
    1. Former Speaker of the House…
    2. Extremely intelligent..
    3. Knows how to organize…
    4. A defiant fighter…

    Cons
    1. Extreme far right positions on foreign policy..
    2. Makes a DC insider look like a country farm boy….
    3. Extreme far right positions on social services..
    4. Very limited private sector experience..
    5. Campaign money? That’s funny
    6. Cut, cap and balance with no cut in defense nor revenue increases.

    Ron Paul…
    Who is that?

    Terrible republican slate…..

     

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

       Are you trying to write “beaucoup” (the French word pronounced bow-coo that means “a lot”) when you write buku? LMAO! Sorry, but that is hilarious.

      • Anonymous

        You are the only one who caught it! You get a cookie….

  • Anonymous

    Just heard Newt tell Sean Hannity on the radio that “turn out was low”….

    tsk.

  • Anonymous

    Larry, I was just wondering, how does it feel to be webstalked by paid cyberasssasins?

    • Anonymous

       Checks in the mail……

    • Anonymous

      Is this a real thing, or a joke? Do people REALLY think that the Obama campaign, or any campaign, has a staff of people paid to go argue with people who are NEVER going to agree with them in the comments sections of obscure political blogs? It’s a joke, right?

      • Anonymous

        Quod erat demonstratum.  I said nothing about the Obama campaign or even this blog. In fact, I was making a private joke with Larry about a training exercise that his company is doing.  In your zeal to respond to every post on this blog, you responded by revealing your operation.

        I’m afraid that your career as point man is in doubt.  Whadya think, Pop? 

        • Anonymous

          Haha, whatever. I’ve seen the accusation often enough to recognize it (hat tip on the Latin, though).

          To be clear though, you’re NOT under the paranoid delusion that I’m a political operative who finds your opinions important?

          • Anonymous

            Actually, no.  I think that if you’re not getting paid for obsessively arguing on a blog, you need to seek the help of a competent psychologist.  In the meantime, having finished my coffee, I need to get back to my clients.

  • Anonymous

    Kicked in the ball? I am no Obama fan… But what we forgot about Iowa all ready?

  • Anonymous

    You all just can’t be this dense. These numbers are still preliminary.

  • Anonymous

    There is not a dam thing that is right now reliable about any of the Illinois numbers. Your looking at RSS feed numbers from the counties and those numbers are all preliminary…..By the way that State chair was a HUGE Romney supporter! Give me a break!  
     

  • Anonymous
    • http://twitter.com/LHN_UK Liverpool Hotels Now

      What a bunch of nonsense that list is. Most of that stuff = nutty conspiracy theories.

    • Anonymous

       ”First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.”

      Come on now….!

    • Anonymous

      Check this out HelenK2

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxGFmWtykqg

      Never heard of this but Bill Clinton…

  • Anonymous

    “Want further proof that this kind of info scares the shit out of the Dems and the Obama cheerleaders? Just look at the trolls we rounded up below. That’s known in the intel world as a ‘warning indicator.’ When you kick them in the balls they squeal like castrated pigs.”

    Pretty funny that in these parts, getting called out hard on your fuzzy math (see the drawn-out argument about turnout percentages below, in which Larry steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the reality of rising GOP membership and proportionally lower vote totals) is taken as “proof” that your bullshit argument is something other than bullshit.

    You know why I’m bugging you about these numbers? Because it’s easy, and fun. And it’s easy and fun because of how plainly wrong you are.

    • Anonymous

      Easy and fun? For a 12 year old maybe. A mature adult with a life? Not so much.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    Listen to my voice:  There are no Republican voters.  There are no Independent voters.  There are no angry Democratic voters.

    All hail Obama! He, who ran as an anti-war candidate, is blasting countries to smithereens.  He, who criticized GWB about preemptive war, now feels we should invade, bomb, or destroy, various and sundry countries.   We may even use proxies to do it.

    Let us not leave out his supporters.  They  of the anti-war marches, documentaries, and speeches on the evils of killing those poor people “over there” even to remove a dictator were beside themselves.  Now? Not so much.  Where was the outrage at the hollywood fake award shows?  There was plenty under GWB.

    Those Obama supporters worried about those poor troops being re-deployed again and again. Now? Not so much. 

    Ah, but those peaceniks so loyal and true under GWB have changed their tune.
    Here is their creed:

    Better to kill thousands or millions than shall Lord Obama lose an election.  And so it goes.

  • Anonymous

    Now now Larry,

    Is it not obvious that the MSM is on the jock of Obama and largely more concerned about partisan politics than actually doing their jobs.

    The media went after Bush, sometimes too zealously IMHO. Likewise despite Bill Clinton’s status as a Democrat, the media went after him too.

    But the current state of the MSM as political cheerleaders is utterly pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    why is this  bill put on hold????????

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/20/Fugitive-Sex-Offenders-Leahy

    Fugitive sex offenders bill put on hold by Patrick Leahy.
    the dems are crying about a war on women, this is one of theirs that seems to be hurting women and children

    • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

      There’s a hold on that bill in memory of Ted Kennedy.

  • Anonymous

    that says it all.
     the desire to get rid of Barack Obama is so strong that Republicans and Independents will be flooding the polls.

  • http://twitter.com/MarvinMarks Marvin Marks

    This may be the worst gaffe out of the Romney campaign yet as it totally confirms the perception of Romney as the biggest flip-flopper in political history:

    http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/mitt-romney-etch-sketch-candidate/2955/ 

  • Anonymous

    Using your logic… then you have no right to question any American on here about American politics or history or anything.. you also need to go back and read you Canadian history books a little better.

    • Anonymous

      I rarely question people about areas where they clearly know better but your arrogance is truly outstanding.

      • Anonymous

        The gang at Cheers misses you Cliff.

  • Anonymous

    This is reply to Ellen below…

    Using your logic… then you have no right to question any American on here about American politics or history or anything..

    you also need to go back and read you Canadian history books a little better.

  • Anonymous

    Here are the numbers from the sources I have previously given you:

    2008                       2012
    10,486,344     9,900,707     Total GOP Primary Votes 
                  
    118,696            101,843     Iowa
    239,315            201,316     New Hampshire
    445499             593,023     South Carolina
    1,949,498       1,650,990     Florida
    44,315                32,894     Nevada
    588,720            233,801     Missouri
    62,837                48,773     Minnesota
    55,845                65,830     Colorado
    5,491                   6,172      Maine
    869,169            968,148      Michigan
    467,762           502,898      Arizona
    960,372           894,365      Georgia
    1,010,864       1,188,370    Ohio
    549,515           541,796      Tennessee
    487,478           265,570      Virginia
    334,980           283,531      Oklahoma
    497,531           361,392      Massachusetts
    125,570            44,655       Idaho
    9,785                11,349      North Dakota
    11,260              13,185      Alaska
    36,730              58,551      Vermont
    19,516              29,605      Kansas
    563,822           607,884      Alabama
    136,527           286,854      Mississippi
    895,247           907,912      Illinois

    It is a straight fact that there have been less GOP primary voters in 2012 than in 2008, which looks even worse when you factor in population growth. Where is all the Tea Party participation and excitement and where is all the excitement to kick-out Obama?

    You can update your post as much as you want to try and strengthen your argument, but it still ain’t true. It is also very disingenuous to change your original post to change the wrong facts you quote once you have been called out. I notice your exaggerated 200,000 increase in SC votes number is now gone.

    “The real story is that Democrat turnout is low; very low. They have no reason to show up at a primary. Not surprising since the contest for the Democrat nomination is not a contest. Only one candidate.”

    That is not a story at all. No one votes in uncontested primaries, as you say yourself.

    Nobody is getting kicked in the balls. You are just wrong.   

    By the way I can always tell when a GOP supporter is flailing around and proven wrong. It is when the name calling and personal insults begin. You always go to the lowest common denominator in the end to try support your argument. So juvenile. It degrades your webside.

    You can also tell someone with a weak argument when they have go back and constantly re-write their original post.

    • Anonymous

      Right off the bat, you cannot compare MO because it was a beauty contest.  In 2008, it was a real primary with delegates attached to it.  The MO primary this time did not count toward ANY delegates and the voters knew it.  The delegates were to be selected at the multiple caucuses that have been taking place since. So, right there you have a difference of 354, 919 votes.

      In VA, there was a similar problem because it was clear that Romney would win, as the Santorum & Newt were not on the ballot.  That’s another 220,000 vote-difference.

      • Anonymous

        So the 220,000 lower voters did not show up in VA only because Newt was not on the ballot? Baloney. I no doubt it was a bit down because of it being less contested, but not all 220,000.

        However, even if you take-out MO and VA entirely the vote count is still lower in 2012.

        Without VA and MO:

        2008: 9,410,146
        2012: 9,401,336

        Not a big difference, but still a low turn-out given it should have been much higher just from population growth and also from all the Tea Party and throw Obama out enthusiasm. Also, 2008 was not a big GOP voting year either with relatively low turnout, so the baseline was terrible. 2008 was bad and 2012 is even worse.

        If you say the population is growing by 1% a year in the U.S., then just based on population growth the 2012 vote should have been: 9,792,235.

  • http://twitter.com/MarvinMarks Marvin Marks

    Yes Larry — the GOP base is obviously just thrilled about Mitt Romney as their nominee. The rest of us are just delusional… ;)

    ~~~

    No really; it’s clear that Romney doesn’t inspire much excitement. The Republicans are going to count on hatred of Obama to turn out their base (and possibly another far right wing VP … but after the Palin disaster of 2008, maybe not.)

    ~~~

    The problem I see for the Republicans is that they need more than just their base to win this fall. They need to win over independents and if the economy continues to improve that’s going to be very difficult for Romney to do.

    • Anonymous

      “The rest of us are just delusional…”

      Finally I can agree with you on something>.

  • Anonymous

    Last time I encountered PPAA he was trying to correct this born-and-bred Canadian on Canadian history.
    I have discounted his posts since.
     

    • http://twitter.com/MarvinMarks Marvin Marks

      So you’re saying because you’re a Canadian you are automatically knowledgeable on all of Canadian history? … here in the United States it doesn’t work like that. There are many Americans who, despite being born & bred in the States, know very little about US history. I would be very surprised if this is not also true in Canada.

      • Anonymous

        Desolation Bay.

      • Anonymous

        Not  so much MM.

      • Anonymous

         Don’t know about the history part but all the Canadians I’ve met know all the words to “O Canada”, which isn’t even as good a song as the “Star Spangled Banner”. That might be an indication that they know more about Canadian history than Americans know about the history of the United States.

      • Anonymous

         Marvin, in Canada they emphasize education, not self-esteem. So the kids who graduate from school in Canada may not feel as good about themselves as their American counterparts, but they do know their history and other subjects. Perhaps when we stop catering to the egos of the young we can do as well in education as Canada does.

  • Anonymous

    “When you kick them in the balls they squeal like castrated pigs. ”

    if they’ve been castrated do they have balls you can kick?

  • Anonymous

    64 comments total as of about 1 pm

    PPAA  has made 10 comments or 15.6% of the comments.
    win43 has made 7 comments or 10.9%

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hank-DeCat/100001190387982 Hank DeCat

    How else are they supposed to spin a +12 point win by Romney as a negative if they don’t claim low voter turnout (you know, Romney is so weak he doesn’t excite voters, not like the great & powerful 0). 

    • Anonymous

      I wonder how they are going to spin Jeb Bush’s endorsement of Romney and call for the party to unite behind him?

      • Anonymous

         I don’t know for sure but I think they will just attack the Bush’s personally and especially George W. The Dems are pretty good at attacking others but not so good at defending BO’s record.

      • Anonymous

        Not a fan of the Bush clan in politics, but I also know that if we hold somebody responsible for what their brother or father did… Obama better watch out.

        • Anonymous

           roflmao..

  • Anonymous

    From the nutty right-wing Townhall website:

    “Low Voter Turn Out in Illinois”

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/20/low_voter_turn_out_in_illinois

    “Voter turnout ‘extremely low’ for Illinois primary: election official”

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/11415912-418/story.html

    “Historically Low Voter Turnout for Illinois Presidential Primary in Chicago”

    “Board of Election spokesman Jim Allen says turnout was expected to be around 24 percent. That would be lower than any time since at least World War II. ”

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/historically-low-voter-turnout-illinois-presidential-primary-chicago-20120320

    “Voter turnout low in Central Illinois”

    “Voter turnout across the area being called ‘extremely disappointing’, with most areas are coming in well under 20 percent.”

    http://www.cinewsnow.com/news/local/Voter-turnout-low–143579816.html

    “Clark Co. IL sees low voter turnout”

    http://www.wthitv.com/dpp/news/illinois/clark-co-il-sees-low-voter-turnout

    Etc. etc. etc.

    Yeah, I know it is all the “left-wing” media like Townhall.com and FOX Chicago.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       Echo chamber and lazy journalists.  Look at the numbers.  I realize with your minimal brain function that poses a challenge.  But give it a shot sport.

      • Anonymous

         Obots don’t think. They do. What they told.

      • Anonymous

        So local media in different areas of the state of IL are all wrong and the election officials in the state are also wrong because LJ said so.

        Now you are stretching.

        You quote one number. The total number of votes and compare it to an already low number in 2008 and that is your evidence that turn-out is not low. Give me a break. Turn-out is always looked at as a percentage of voters. That percentage was the lowest it had ever been in IL since WWII for Republican voters.

    • Anonymous

      Not a single one of those articles listed the numbers to prove their assertions that turnout was “extremely low”. Not a one.

    • Anonymous

      Those links show you that there is spin from every direction.  Stop believing what people say and opine and look at actual numbers.  If I would believe every right-wing spin in my email box Gingrich would be on his way to win by now.

  • Anonymous

    The lame stream media is biased for Barry and it suits their purposes to put out the propaganda that Republicans aren’t enthused about the 2012 Presidential election.  They play that game at their own peril.  Go ahead and be lulled into thinking that GOP turnout will be low for the GE.  

    The GOP 2012 primary process has been a nightmare.  The cost saving caucuses and beauty contest primaries with no delegates awarded and the pre-April  proportional delegate primaries have contributed to the circular firing squad debacle.  No doubt caucuses depress voter turnout and skew results.

    At least this process has allowed Romney to get trench warfare experience and improve his offensive and defensive skills in preparation to take on the Democratic Chicago machine and media.  The Republicans claim to want a candidate who can attack and counter attack the Barry blitz.  Well hasn’t Mr. Nice shown he and his supporters are ready, willing and able to take it to Barry.

  • Anonymous

    Well, my very conservative sister (the fundamentalist Christian sort) just got out of the hospital, so I’m not going to tease her too much about this win in Obamaland.  She assured me that numbers don’t count because God will help Santorum.    Later, when she feels better I may ask her if perhaps it was God helping Romney instead.

    I love how the obots are all over LJ on this.  I think they are all messing their diapers over Romney’s win in the state that conjured up the anti “messiah.”

    • Anonymous

       Maybe God wants someone who can actually defeat Obama come November.

      • Anonymous

        That’s exactly my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      If you can, see if she knows why He threw Tebow under the bus.  Especially after all that public groveling….

      • Anonymous

        Don’t get me wrong about this–I loved Tebow in our state (CO), but i am not a football fan and neither is my sister.  Tebow will do fine wherever he goes.  He’s wonderful–so he is not “under the bus.”  It was John Elway who made the deal with Manning.  We know someone in the Broncos front office who let us know that it was a requirement of Manning’s that Tebow had to go.

        • Roger Elder

          Time will tell and manning is a smart player no doubt… but being smart on the field won’t make him mobile. If Tebow being young, huge and tough had problems with protection… then this may not end so well. Tebow on the other hand will be fine. I hope he goes somewhere he is appreciated for the person he is on and off the field. He has a lot ahead of him now that Denver is behind him. 

          • Anonymous

            He didn’t. He went to New York. Where the local sportswriters are all ready making him out as some kind of homophobe.

    • Anonymous

      “I think they are all messing their diapers over Romney’s win in the state that conjured up the anti ‘messiah.’”

      I’ll probably vote for Obama in the fall, which I guess around here makes me an “obot.” And I don’t get this — why would it bother me that the Republican front-runner won a Republican primary? Who cares that it was Obama’s home state? It’s not like Republican primary voters were going to vote for Obama, LOL.

      • Anonymous

         Its pretty clear that Obama would rather face Santorum than Romney in the GE. That is (I believe) the message DianaLC was trying to convey in her comment.

        • Anonymous

          Ah. Well that, yeah. If it’s to be some competition vs. no competition, I’ll take the latter. :)

      • Anonymous

        Because it’s the independents who vote for Romney that obots such as yourself know O might need.  It’s the not so far right conservatives who came out in numbers to vote for Romney over Santorum.  Obots like it when Santorum wins. 

        I wonder if some of those independents are independents like me, who left the Dem party when O and the DNC cabal rigged the nomination process during the last presidential race.

  • Anonymous

    Michigan Mischief for Saintorum
    According to exit polling Tuesday night, 9% of Michigan voters identified themselves as Democrats. More than half of those voters, or 53%, said they voted for Santorum while 18% picked Romney.

    12% of Michigan voters said they strongly oppose the Tea Party and fewer than 1 in 6 of them were Republicans. Santorum got most of these Michigan voters: 45% vs. 29% for Romney.

    13% of Michigan voters identified themselves as liberals, and they favored Santorum over Romney by 11 percentage points.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-michigan-crossover-voting-mitt-romney/1#.T2n8-mJWqH8

  • Anonymous

    Michigan Mischief for Saintorum
    According to exit polling Tuesday night, 9% of Michigan voters identified themselves as Democrats. More than half of those voters, or 53%, said they voted for Santorum while 18% picked Romney.

    12% of Michigan voters said they strongly oppose the Tea Party and fewer than 1 in 6 of them were Republicans. Santorum got most of these Michigan voters: 45% vs. 29% for Romney.

    13% of Michigan voters identified themselves as liberals, and they favored Santorum over Romney by 11 percentage points.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-michigan-crossover-voting-mitt-romney/1#.T2n8-mJWqH8

    • Anonymous

      Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.  
      It is easy to get fooled by statistics if one isn’t objective while analyzing them.  Consumer research analysis was part of my 30+ year career in R&D.  I constantly reminded myself to remain objective and not design tests or twist statistics to support the outcome we thought management favored.

      According to exit polls some Democrats crossed over to vote in the Republican primary in states such as Michigan.  That accounts for some of the “Republican” turnout and votes for Saintorum. Some of these Democrats also voted for Romney.  So were these genuine votes for Romney or were these also mischief maker votes? 

      Saw Ed Rollins on teevee this morning.  He has primary fatigue and thinks voters do also.  Ed doesn’t believe primary voter turnout really is an indicator of GE voter turnout.  Bill Hummer excoriated him sputtering something along the lines of, but this is your job. 

  • Anonymous

     FLASH: U.S. SENT FRENCH SHOOTING SUSPECT BACK TO FRANCE FROM AFGHANISTAN… DEVELOPING…

  • Anonymous

     Obama fundraising slips from 2008

    I`m sure he dosen`t have the phone banks in Gaza set up yet.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74270.html

    • Anonymous

      Yeah. all that Wall Street and 1%er money is now going to Romney.

      However, what is just as important is where the money comes from. Obama relies on many many more small donations. You know from people who actually vote. Sure Romney can get more $10 million checks from big donors, but those big donors only represent one vote. Better to collect money from many more voters. It represents more votes, more enthusiasim, a potential for a better ground game, etc. So far Romney has very little by way of a grassroots organization and a limited ground game because he has only relied on big money donors.  

      • Anonymous

         Obama relied on unions using his lax campaign donation verification to funnel millions to him using untraceable prepaid credit cards. No one believes the BS you’re peddling except those too dumb to even try to think for themselves. But by all means feel free to prove to the world you are a moron.

        • Anonymous

          “Obama relied on unions using his lax campaign donation verification to funnel millions to him using untraceable prepaid credit cards.”

          Care to provide any proof whatsoever to your claim?

          I will give you a tinfoil hat for that comment.

          • Anonymous

            http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Lawyers-for-both-parties-say-lax-screening-1791925.php

            http://voices.yahoo.com/the-federal-election-commission-probes-campaign-8314359.html?cat=9

            http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/09/nation/na-money9

            “Obama has revolutionized campaign fundraising, employing the Internet
            to tap into more donors than any candidate in history. The campaign has
            reported $160 million in contributions from donors of $200 or less,
            more than a third of the $458 million raised. But as Obama sets records,
            his fundraising has come under increased scrutiny.

            The Democratic
            candidate’s donors also include “Derty Poiiuy,” an individual with a
            scatological sense of humor who has given $950. “Mong Kong” has
            contributed $1,065 and lists an address in a nonexistent city. “Fornari
            USA” gave $800 and listed the address of an apparel store of that name
            near San Francisco.
            The Republican National Committee filed a
            federal complaint this week, alleging that some of Obama’s small
            donations are illegal because they come from foreign nationals or exceed
            the limit.

            Obama’s contributions have also exposed a loophole in
            the law, which does not require disclosure of the identities of donors
            who give $200 or less, making it impossible to determine whether they
            are legitimate without a federal audit.

            • Anonymous

              Typical response from you Boogie.

              You are completely off topic.

              Vet above says:

              “Obama relied on unions using his lax campaign donation verification to funnel millions to him using untraceable prepaid credit cards”

              There is no proof that Union are using prepaid credit cards to funnel millions to Obama. Prove it.

              The issue you raise about small donors being able to give relatively anonymously through websites was an issue raised and discussed in 2008. As far as I know it was never proven that any foreign donors had given money to either campaign this way. Do you have any actual proof that this occured?

              • Anonymous

                 In other words….PWNED! HAha!

          • Anonymous

            An Obot giving someone else a tin foil hat. Now that’s funny.

      • Anonymous

         Obama relied on unions using his lax campaign donation verification to funnel millions to him using untraceable prepaid credit cards. No one believes the BS you’re peddling except those too dumb to even try to think for themselves. But by all means feel free to prove to the world you are a moron.

      • Anonymous

        Question for you, did you or then-Senator Obama have any problem with the money coming from Wall Street last time?

        • Anonymous

          I do not have a problem with Wall Street donating, as long as we know where it is going and who is giving it. I do have a problem with Citizens United.

          However, Wall Street generally splits its money fairly evenly, with a slightly more going to the most likely winner. That is the history. Obama had slightly more Wall Street money than McCain last time.

          This time it is likely that Romney will have much much more in donations from Wall Street than Obama. So clearly Romney will be the Wall Street candidate, which makes sense as he is a 1%er from Wall Street. Wall Street did not like Frank Dodd, restrictions on bonuses in 2008 and 2009 and the putting of Goldman on the spot in legal action by the Federal government. They love Romney with his zero regulation mantra. Wall Street also loves Romney for his no higher taxes on carried interest, dividends or capital gains. Romney will really look after their interests and the rest of us will foot the higher deficit bill driven by the Wall Street collapse in the economy.

        • Anonymous

          I do not have a problem with Wall Street donating, as long as we know where it is going and who is giving it. I do have a problem with Citizens United.

          However, Wall Street generally splits its money fairly evenly, with a slightly more going to the most likely winner. That is the history. Obama had slightly more Wall Street money than McCain last time.

          This time it is likely that Romney will have much much more in donations from Wall Street than Obama. So clearly Romney will be the Wall Street candidate, which makes sense as he is a 1%er from Wall Street. Wall Street did not like Frank Dodd, restrictions on bonuses in 2008 and 2009 and the putting of Goldman on the spot in legal action by the Federal government. They love Romney with his zero regulation mantra. Wall Street also loves Romney for his no higher taxes on carried interest, dividends or capital gains. Romney will really look after their interests and the rest of us will foot the higher deficit bill driven by the Wall Street collapse in the economy.

          • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford


             I do have a problem with Citizens United.”

            Of course you do. But no problem with unions shoveling cash into buying Democrats.

          • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford


            They love Romney with his zero regulation mantra.”

            Are you really this ignorant? Or just playing at it?

        • Anonymous

          I do not have a problem with Wall Street donating, as long as we know where it is going and who is giving it. I do have a problem with Citizens United.

          However, Wall Street generally splits its money fairly evenly, with a slightly more going to the most likely winner. That is the history. Obama had slightly more Wall Street money than McCain last time.

          This time it is likely that Romney will have much much more in donations from Wall Street than Obama. So clearly Romney will be the Wall Street candidate, which makes sense as he is a 1%er from Wall Street. Wall Street did not like Frank Dodd, restrictions on bonuses in 2008 and 2009 and the putting of Goldman on the spot in legal action by the Federal government. They love Romney with his zero regulation mantra. Wall Street also loves Romney for his no higher taxes on carried interest, dividends or capital gains. Romney will really look after their interests and the rest of us will foot the higher deficit bill driven by the Wall Street collapse in the economy.

      • Anonymous

        Don’t know where you are getting your facts.  It looks as if Wall Street is still opening its wallets for Pres Obama. 

        “President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors last month included employees of Wells Fargo & Co., (WFC) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records.
         
        Their support indicates that Wall Street, which gave Obama $16 million for his successful 2008 White House run, is opening its checkbook again for the president. The contributions helped Obama raise $21 million in February, including $6.5 million transferred from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee.”

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/jpmorgan-employees-join-goldman-sachs-among-top-obama-donors.html 

      • Anonymous

        Gerald Acker, Huntington Woods, MI – $200,000-$500,000 (Goodman Acker PC)Mark Alderman, Bryn Mawr, PA – $200,000-$500,000 (Cozen & O’Connor)Jean-Phillipe Austin, Miami, FL – $200,000-$500,000 (Physician)Matthew Barzun, Louisville, KY – $500,000+ (Brickpath LLC)Tom and Andrea Bernstein, New York, NY – $500,000+ (Chelsea Piers Mgmt)Neil Bluhm, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Walton Street Capital)Wally Brewster, Jr., and Robert Satawake, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (General Growth Properties/Keller Williams Realty)Jim Crown, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Henry Crown & Co)John Crumpler, Durham, NC – $500,000+ (Hatteras Venture Architects)Meredith DeWitt, Harvard, MA – $200,000-$500,000 (Political Consultant)Fred Eychaner, Chicago, IL – $500,000+ (Newsweb Corp)Joseph Falk, Miami, FL – $200,000-$500,000 (Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson)Rajiv Kumar Fernando, Chicago, IL – $200,000-$500,000 (Chopper Trading)John Frank, Bellevue, WA — $500,000+ (Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft,)William Freeman, Nashville, TN – $100,000-$200,000 (Freeman Webb Co)Lou Frillman, Seattle, WA – $200,000-$500,000 (GVA Marquette Advisors/Financial Designs Ltd)Anthony Gardner, Washington, DC – $200,000-$500,000 (Palamon Captial Partners)Chad Griffin, Los Angeles, CA – $100,000-$200,000 (Chad Griffin Consulting)Samuel Heins and Stacey Mills, Wayzata, MN – $200,000-$500,000 (Heins, Mills & Olson)Don Hinkle, Tallahassee, FL – $100,000-$200,000 (Hinkle & Foran)Gary Hirshberg, Concord, NH – $100,000-$200,00 (Stonyfield Farm)Barry Karas, Los Angeles, CA – $500,000+ (Perlman & Assoc/Actor)Janet Keller, Laguna Beach, CA – $200,000-$500,000 (Consultant)Charlie Kireker, Weybridge, VT – $200,000-$500,000 (Twin Birches)Orin Kramer, New York, NY – $500,000+ (Boston Provident)Mai Lassiter, Los Angeles, CA – $200,000-$500,000 (Overbrook Entertainment)Suzi Levine, Seattle, WA – $200,000-$500,000 (Microsoft)Joe Liemandt, Austin, TX – $100,000-$200,000 (Trilogy Enterprises Inc)James Murray, Keene, VA – $100,000-$200,000 (Greenbriar Square Property Management)Susan Ness, Bethesda, MD – $200,000-$500,000 (Susan Ness Strategies)Michael Monroe Parham, Seattle, WA – $500,000+ (Realnetworks Inc)Carol Pensky, Washington, DC – $200,000-$500,000 (Retired)Ellen Richman, Greenwich, CT – $50,000-$100,000 (Richman Group)John Scully, San Francisco, CA – $50,000-$100,000 (Spo Partners & Co)Diana Shaw Clark, Washington, DC – $100,000-$200,000 (Writer)Jay Snyder, New York, NY – $200,000-$500,000 (HBJ Investments)Sally Susman, New York, NY – $500,000+ (Pfizer Inc)John and Sandi Thompson, Woodside, CA – $200,000-$500,000 (Fenwick & West)George Tsunis, Cold Spring Harbor, NY – $200,000-$500,000 (Chartwell Hotels)Harvey Weinstein, New York, NY – $500,000+ (Weinstein Co)Anna Wintour, New York, NY — $500,000+ (Editor-in-Chief, Vogue Magazine)

  • Anonymous

    “For the first time since Rick Santorum’s surge, Romney ate into large
    pieces of the former Pennsylvania senator’s base and, in some cases,
    swallowed them whole, expanding his support among younger voters, the
    middle class and Tea Party backers.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/christian-heinze/217219-mitt-romney-exorcises-demographic-demons-in-broad-illinois-primary-victory

    First curtain call for the Fat Lady. Goodbye Ricky it was nice knowing you. 

  • Anonymous

    Jeb Bush just endorsed Mitt.

    • Anonymous

      that took a lot of balls. he waited to Romney was almost certain to win before he endorses. that shows a lot of confidence in Romney.

      • Anonymous

         drip…..drip….drip…

    • Anonymous

      It was how he endorsed him that was important. He thanked the other candidates for a good primary and said it was time to unite behind Romney.

    • Anonymous

       What did you expect?

  • Anonymous

    LJ,

    How about some intellectual honesty from you?

    You are comparing total vote counts with the percentage of voters number. The two are completely different numbers and apples and oranges. The percentage of voters number is much more relevant than your total number, given population growth and the changes in the size of the pool of voters. That article is completely correct.

    Just looking at population growth. U.S. population is growing at about 1% a year (lets assume is same for Illinois). Just to keep up with the population growth the 899,169 votes cast in 2008 should be closer to 935,678. At 917,045 the Republican Primary vote count is not even keeping up with the population growth in IL.

    In addition, the 2008 number was already quite low, as there was little enthusasism from Republican voters in 2008. You would think with a reasonably hot contest between Romney and Santorum and enthusiasm to get rid of Obama, more Republicans would be turning out. Where is all the Tea Party enthusiasm that did not exist in 2008.

    Total vote count so far in Republican primaries (factoring out states that do not report total vote counts):

    2012: 9,900,707
    2008: 10,486,344

    The vote totals so far are much lower than in 2008 and that is not even including the growth which should have naturally occured from population growth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html

    This chart shows you the numbers state by state.

    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/files/2012/03/Abernathy_Chart.jpg

    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/2012/03/why-low-republican-primary-turnout-examining-the-explanations-of-political-commentators/

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       You are completely full of shit.  Deal with the facts asshole.  More Republicans voted in Illinois yesterday than did in 2008.  Same for Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Mississippi.  Oh yeah, South Carolina turned out almost 200,000 more voters.  Embrace your bullshit.  Makes our job easier in the fall if all Obama supporters are as stupid as you.

      • Anonymous

        Doubling down on your BS spin, I take it?

        If a lower PERCENTAGE of Republicans turn out in 2012 than 2008 — which appears to be the case, assuming normal population growth — then the turnout RATE is down, even if total turnout is up. And I don’t see how you argue that the total is more important than the rate.

        Yes, you can say that “more” Republicans voted. But if the GOP turnout rate is lower (which it appears to be), then even more Republicans STAYED HOME this year than in 2008. 

        It’s too simple to ignore, Larry. There are more voters this year than there were in 2008. The number that stayed home increased by more than the number that voted. A lower percentage came out. It’s totally fair to interpret this to mean that enthusiasm is down.

        • Anonymous

          Love the NQ website sub-title: “Tired of the spin?”

          That is all NQ has turned into. They cannot deal with a recovering economy. They cannot deal with a party that has done more for women than many other Adminstrations. They cannot deal with America being more respected in the U.S. They cannot deal with a country that has been well protected. They cannot deal with Obama doing a good job cleaning up the mess left by the GOP. They cannnot deal with whatever. So it is 100% 24-7 spin on NQ.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            You’re free to go elsewhere.  Perhaps HuffyPoo is more to your liking.  You could probably even skew numbers over at Politico to your heart’s content.  

      • Anonymous

        You are not dealing with the issues I bring up.

        You are looking at total numbers that are not adjusted for population or the change in the underlying size of the Republcian voter pool. The article you references looks at what percentage of voters voted and that ratio is significantly down. The percentage is much more important, as it reflect the change in the size of the voter pool.

        Second, if you look at the total vote count for all the primaries that have been held so far, that vote count is down significantly, nevermind the percentage of voters casting votes and not even adjusting for population growth.

        Your analysis for even just Illinois is too simplistic and your conclusion for the overall vote count for all the primaries so far is just wrong. Far fewer Republicans have voted in 2012 than in 2008 and 2008 was not even a very enthusiastic vote total year itself.

        By the way lets talk about your facts:

        Sourth Carolina:
        2008: 445,499
        2012: 593,023

        That is a difference of 147,524, not 200,000. You should watch your own facts.

        What about Florida:

        2008: 1,949,498
        2012: 1,650,990

        I give you the total votes so far:

        2012: 9,900,707 2008: 10,486,344

        That is 585,637 less votes than in 2008.

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

           Absolutely dealing with the issues.  You are intermixing caucus numbers with actual votes.  Republican voters are turning out in larger numbers in the vast majority of states.  Suck on that.

          • Anonymous

            Not intermixing anything. As I say below I take out the states where vote totals are not reported.

            Overall, GOP vote totals are down about 6% from 2008 and 2008 was already a low voter enthusiasm year for the GOP.

          • Anonymous

            When people look at increase in population, does that include illegal immigrants who are not supposed to vote and hopefully stay home.  I know that in CA, that is the only increase we have had… Americans (voters) moving away, and immigrants (legal and illegal) are moving in.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       You are as dishonest as can be.  Citing percentages is not the same as the real numbers.  I’ve provided the link to the NY Times site that has the numbers.  I sincerely hope your way of thinking is typical of the folks working on Obama’s campaign.  If that is the case, the Republican task will be so much easier.  Blind, delusional denial is a recipe for disaster.  That is what you are–a human nightmare of a disaster.

      • Anonymous

        Why don’t the percentages matter? By your logic, voter “turnout” is actually at an all-time high these days, simply because the population today is higher than it was 50 years ago (when typical turnout was over 60 percent in Presidential election years, compared to 50-55 percent today). 

        Using totals instead of percentages is a stupid way of measuring turnout and you know it.

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

          Percentages are terribly misleading.  You must look at the actual numbers instead of picking and choosing percentages.  The numbers tell the story.  More Republicans voting this year than in 2008. 

          • Anonymous

            Why are percentages misleading? Give me something more than a conclusory assertion, here. Has the number of registered Republican voters not gone up? 

            • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

              How about thinking about the number of registered Democrats that will be voting GOP this year in November.  

              That’s perhaps the most important number to the  Obama campaign.  

              The silent, pissed off, average American that will no longer tolerate subterfuge and lies…weep, little liberals, weep!!!

              • Anonymous

                That’s possible, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my point: the turnout rate of registered GOP voters in the GOP primary, so far, appears to be down.

                • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

                  You can play the numbers game with Larry today and it still won’t change the mood of the voters.  Obama campaign contributions down 28%, OWS – basically a bust, repeal of Obama care favored by majority, etc, etc,  

                • Anonymous

                  So the “base” of the party is changing and we’re not all signed up yet. So what?

              • Anonymous

                Maybe not Democrats, but Independents for sure.

          • Anonymous

            The thing is…

            “More Republicans voting this year than in 2008.”

            More Republicans are STAYING HOME this year than in 2008, too. That’s why the turnout RATE is lower even if vote totals have increased.

            You really don’t think it matters that more primary voters are sitting this one out? Or are you just conveniently ignoring that?

            • Anonymous

              If I assume what you are saying is true then only conclusion possible is that there are now more Republicans.

              • Anonymous

                Yeah. Aren’t there? The voting age population has grown. Hasn’t the GOP kept up? Seems like a safe assumption that it would have.

          • Anonymous

            Percentages to LJ are only misleading when he is not using them.

        • Anonymous

          yup.  remember what mark twain said.  there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 

      • Anonymous

        no, no, larry.  it’s just like the unemployment numbers.  you’re missing PPAA’s point altogether.  the baseline is whatever suits their point. 

      • Anonymous

        It is funny, but you like to talk about the participation rate and percentages when you give us your econonmic and employment market analysis when you talk about the labor market and now you simply discredit percentages, which has been the traditional way to look at voter turnout for years. LJ be consistent. Is that too much to ask?

        Again, look at the total GOP vote count, so far the total vote count for all the primaries has been below 2008 and that is not taking into account population growth.

        Nobody is denying anything. Yes, there was a larger GOP vote total in Illinois. However, the participation rate was at historic lows. Which one is more important? And which one is closer to showing what voter enthusiasim is like?

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

           No, once again you are wrong.  I look at both percentages and numbers, especially with the employment/unemployment numbers. Hey, if you really, truly believe the bullshit you are writing, good on you.  Simply illustrates you are not a serious person and that you are incapable of rational thought.

          • Anonymous

            You have yet to establish that anything is “bullshit.” You haven’t even addressed the percentages argument yet, other than to say “percentages are misleading” and leave it at that. And that simply isn’t a rebuttal, without more.

            You appear to be awfully bad at defending your arguments, Larry. Either that or you aren’t trying.

            • Anonymous

              i think he just did address the percentages argument.

              • Anonymous

                Nope. See above.

          • Anonymous

            Well you clearly were not looking at the percentages for the Illinois GOP primary turn-out. You just give us a slightly higher voter count for IL, which does not even keep up with population growth and you tell us there is no low voter turn-out. BS. The percentage of voters voting in IL was at a historic low. And 2008 was also a lower historic voter turnout year for the Republicans, so that makes the picture even worse. You also deny that the total vote count for all the primaries held this year is not below 2008. Again, BS. The numbers show the total vote count is below the 2008 level for all primaries held so far and in fact your boy Romney is pulling a lower vote total than McCain was at this point.

            • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

               I will stop insulting you.  Obviously, you are mentally retarded and limited in your intellectual abilities.  I will try to be simple.  The voting percentage in Illinois refers to both Democrats and Republicans.  A very low turnout by Dems drove the stats down.  However, 21000 plus more Republican voters showed up this year.  Those are the facts.  I realize someone with your limitations can’t grasp things like this, but hang in there and keep trying.

              • Anonymous

                You’re cheating. First off, you’re ignoring results outside of Illinois — the overall percentages are clearly down, by a lot. 

                But let’s ignore that and just take your figures, for Illinois:

                About 899k Republicans voted in 2008. About 920k (your figure) voted in 2012.

                We can assume that the number of registered GOP voters increased from 2008 to 2012, at about 1% annually (in keeping with the overall rate of population growth — if you have better data, let’s see it).

                So, if the turnout rate is the same for GOP voters — I’m ignoring Democrats, here — as it was in 2008, we should have seen about 935k Republican primary votes cast in Illinois. That’s a 1% annual increase over 4 years.

                However, 920k is less than 935k. Hence, it’s reasonable to say that the GOP turnout rate in Illinois was lower yesterday than it was in 2012.

                If you can refute that, you’re going to need data on the actual number of registered Republicans in Illinois in 2008 and 2012, and you’re going to have to show your math. Go ahead.

                • Anonymous

                  That is the same math I went through above, which LJ is conveniently ignoring. You can also add that the baseline for 2008 was also a poor turn-out year in IL for Republicans. Turnout was bad in 2008 and it was even worse in 2012.

                   

                  • Anonymous

                    Yeah, I know. And the crickets in response are getting deafening.

                    Guy sure talks a big game, but when you ask for data…

  • Anonymous

    Nice update.

    I don’t mind the Obamedia continuing to harp on it’s low turnout meme. The look on their faces when turnout is huge, perhaps unprecedented, will be worth it. I can hear Chris Matthews now: “I think that shit just ran down my leg.”

  • Anonymous

    One of the takeways from IL may be to disprove the Rick/Newt theory that they are splitting the conservative vote.  With Newt’s #s cratering, it seems that Romney is the one who benefitted.  Santorum stayed at his mid 30s; but Romney got a greater margin of victory. 

    Romney:  47%
    Santorum:  35%
    Paul:  9%
    Newt: 8%

    • Anonymous

      jrterrier……Let`s get it straight. You mean President Romney….I just want the trolls getting used to seeing it in print.

    • Anonymous

      The recent “conversion” of FreedomWorks from an anti-Romney campaign to a let’s unite around the obvious choice and win campaign is bearing fruit.

  • Anonymous

    It’s pretty clear that Romney is winning every state where the evangelical vote is below 70 to 75%.

    Except perhaps for IA, where there were so many candidates that the votes was split every which way. 

  • Anonymous

    I agree LJ.  They said the same of PR.   

    In Puerto Rico, elections are like the super bowl!  We love politics!  We are also passionate people who would turnout in mass to vote for those who we believe in.Believe me, the PRicans on the mainland have speed dial with the folks back home in the island. AND believe me there were Dems who voted for Romney!Like I said passion for country…we are not easily fooled!  AND we never vote based on race.  That is a fool’s errand… 

  • Anonymous

    After reading my last post… Let me see if I can explain it this way. Illinois has a very confusing system. There is no democratic or republican registered count. Just a total state registered voter count of about 6.5 million, give or take a few hundred. The bulk of these voters are in Chicago and Cook Counties, which are predominately democratic and southern and far northern counties are republican. When they say low they mean total low…… Now one can walk into any polling place and instantly declare a party and vote and then change it around the next time.

    What help Romney this round is he went after the moderate indie vote that is why the republican numbers jumped….Otherwise it was a low turnout…. You just can’t say that the republicans came out in force because there is no voting republican nor democratic force so to speak of….

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

       Dude,
      I get it.  You don’t like Romney.  But the facts are the facts–far more Republicans voted this time than did four years ago.  The only low turnout was among Democrats.  In fact, if you look at the turnouts in Ohio and Michigan, Republicans have turned out 300,000 more voters this year than four years ago.  And Romney is doing better, vote wise, than McCain did in these same contests.  Your hatred blinds you.

      • Anonymous

        Larry every party needs a pooper that why we have Popsmoke. I was wondering what the anti Romney crowd was going to use to explain away why Romney won Illinois in such a big way. Turns out they are going to use Fuzzy Math this time.

        • Anonymous

          I vote we require he change his name to Poopsmoke.  Just kidding Pop. We disagree on some stuff but I do enjoy your posts. Except when you are wrong, of course.

          • Anonymous

            Wrong? Which is rare and when I am I will admit it….:-))

        • Anonymous

          I enjoy Popsmoke except when he goes off the rails and calls me a hater.

          • Anonymous

             I called you a hater? I take it back….

            • Anonymous

              That’s OK Popsmoke. I still love you.

        • Anonymous

          Really fuzzy math? Try using real numbers rather than horse hockey….

          This is the problem with people today. You rather talk crap than fact check. 

          • Anonymous

             Sorry to upset you Pops. You need to lighten up a little bit you are wound up so tight that I bet when you pass gas all the neighborhood dogs howl.

      • Anonymous

        Its my dislike for Romney not hatred… I hate no one…

        Secondly, my friend…Your numbers…. Where are you getting these numbers from? Larry the numbers you are using are very preliminary at best since the Illinois State Board of Elections does not even have the breakdowns numbers currently. All number including to ones I have are extremely preliminary and the numbers are still at the local levels. The military and absentee ballots have not even been counted yet. So we have to be very careful on how we project any breakdowns at this time. Only the MSM can blow this kind of smoke. The count was low for the State that is a fact. The highest vote percentage at this point in time was not over 20% and this number comes form the State Board of Elections.

        Right now all the State can say is that Romney is the projected winner. But to define those numbers and break them down at especially in Illinois at this time is really not possible nor accurate.

        Right now I see the exit polls which are a good indicator of who did what and why and that is what I am using. But they are only indicators.

        We cannot compare numbers with any confidence until at least April 20 when the actually state count is certified. Then there is another 14 days to count the absentee and military votes. Illinois is one of those difficult states.

        At this point you nor anyone else can say that anyone party had any increase or decrease in votes. The numbers you are blindly using my friend, are really blind numbers….

        Regards

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

           Bullshit.  Stop being lazy.  I put the goddamn links in for Chicago.  Follow them yourself.  You know better than this.  Get your head out of your ass.

          • Anonymous

            Bullshit back at ya…Huff post and NY Times? Your being lazy… Try I spoke directly to the State Election Board in Springfield…. Try it and use the numbers you cited. The numbers you are citing are still preliminary and your using those numbers against official 2008 numbers, which changed….

            Larry, lazy I am not you of all people should know that….

  • Anonymous

    Larry, I am in the Chicagoland area and watched this unfold. Not one democratic
    or republican official is saying anything differently.
    That includes Pat Brady the Republican State Chair. “Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party,
    also noted the state enjoyed an extraordinarily warm and sunny first day
    of spring. The weather may have diverted some people from the voting
    booth, he said.”

    Worse yet conservatives either stayed home or voted Santorum. Romney’s
    win was with moderate republicans and indies which he drew from very selected
    delegate rich counties which caused the republican numbers to jump up. On top of that Chicago is Illinois! CBS is not the only one reporting this. All outlets are reporting the same thing and that includes Fox. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c3d55cd245d54289997a5ed5a7e73344/IL–Illinois-Primary/

    ‘Turnout was low across the state. In Sangamon County, a Republican
    stronghold in central Illinois, about 1 in 5 registered voters cast
    ballots. The numbers were about the same in the GOP-leaning suburbs of
    Cook County. Kane County saw similar results, although officials said
    turnout among Republicans topped 50 percent.”

    The lack of statewide races beyond the presidential
    contest likely played a role in holding down turnout, particularly among
    Democrats. It was the first Illinois primary since 2000 that didn’t
    include a race for U.S. Senate or governor.

    To top that, most voters were last minute and voted by the media buys which Romney again out spent Rick and Noot 5 to 1. Its sad that people are voting by sound bites and not records and facts. Otherwise the republican field would be stronger…. 

    • Anonymous

      “Worse yet conservatives either stayed home or voted Santorum.”

      Are you serious???

      Conservatives voted for Romney in overwhelming numbers.

      The “Very Conservative” voters supported Santorum (you know, the ones who think they have a right to dictate what goes on in our bedroom), and not by a very large margin.  

      You’ve made it clear that you despise Romney with recent comments, but as of yet have offered nothing to qualify why, save for your own quirks.  

      Are you really ‘Sanctimonious Santorum’ posting under another name?

      • Anonymous

         Anthony your wrong….PERIOD!  And I am no Santorum fan at all….

        By the way, you better read all my posts on Romney. I have detailed why I do not like him pretty extensively and that includes his one tern record as governor.

        • Anonymous

          The exit polls published by CNN don’t bear out your position, Pop. 

          According to CNN exit polls, Romney won the conservative vote:  47% of conservatives voted for Romney; only 39% voted for Santorum.

          Santorum won only the self-described “very conservative” 48 to 37% for Santorum.

          Romney won those who described themselves as “somewhat Conservatives” 55% to 31%.

          http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/il

          • Anonymous

            Exit pols mean nothing to those suffering from RDS

          • Anonymous

            Understand in the  Chicago, Cook County and Chicagoland area republican moderates are conservatives…. The rest is all bullshit about somewhat Conservative…. What crap….

            You have to review all of the exit polls statewide. Not just what CNN or Fox says….

        • Anonymous

          his one tern record as governor.

          Ok, I get it. You aren’t birds of the same feather. Would two terns have won you over?

          • Anonymous

             As they always say “two terns are better than one”. Quack.

            Just kidding.

          • Anonymous

            It would have been an incidator that he was serious not setting the stage for a presidential run….

        • Anonymous

          Geez, Pop – don’t shoot the messenger!

          My numbers are accurate.  Just because you don’t like the exit poll data doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

          “Anthony your wrong….PERIOD!”

          (I bet you stomped your foot when you wrote that…)

          • Anonymous

            That is the problem Anthony… At this point no one ones numbers are accurate!

    • Anonymous

      Pop, the problem with your post is that you are quoting media outlets and statistics that aren’t always reliable in their reporting.  you know the saying about statistics — there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. to say that 1 in 5 republicans voted doesn’t tell us anything unless we can compare to the number who showed up in 2008.  
       
      and to say that “Turnout was low . . . The numbers were about the same in the GOP-leaning suburbs of Cook County. Kane County saw similar results, although officials said turnout among Republicans topped 50%.” 
       
      That paragraph tells you all you need to know about the bias of the writer.  A greater than 50% of Republicans in a primary is pretty damned good; sometimes you don’t even get those numbers in the actual national election.  Yet that sentence equates greater than 50% to ”similar” results (ie, low turnout).  doesn’t make sense to me.   sounds pretty high for a primary.   
       
      what we have is that in absolute #s, more people turned out this year than last. 
       
      the fact that DEM leaders say the same thing doesn’t give any more credence to the point because there is partisan gamesmanship.  the fact that the republican state chairman said also doesn’t tell me much.  is he a romney supporter?  is he a smart man?  i’ve seen some knuckleheads out there saying stuff that isn’t helpful to their own party. 
       
       

  • Anonymous

    The DEMOCRAT Chairman was referring to the low Dem turnout. Somehow this morphed into being applied to the Romney rout. Obam(edi)a explaining the news so your lying eyes and ears don’t have to.

    • Anonymous

      It was low because dead people didn’t vote this time….

      • Anonymous

        They won’t be dug up until November.

        • Anonymous

           LOL

      • Anonymous

         still buried till November.  lol

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6RLFUOLWP23SJ5RQHENEPHKME David L

    What a new concept, the MSM putting out wrong info, who woulda  thunk it ?  Only an idiot would believer the sorry ass newscasters and newspapers we have available today. 

  • Anonymous

    No spin too low for the Obamamedia. We can be thankful that a few good people actually “report” the truth. Unfortunately most voters will never see or hear it.

    The media corruption has become so obvious that any one who seriously tries can see it. To bad so few try.

    • Anonymous

      and even the republican candidates repeat it without being challenged by the media.  you know, the candidates who are always accusing Romney of being a liar. 

      • Anonymous

        You mean the whiner and the ego? Funny how FOX scurried to interview Gingrich, who came in dead last. Why not Paul who beat Gingrich?

        • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

          Because Ron Paul is a lunatic.

  • Anonymous

    Don`t blame the media Larry………..They are only reporting what the White House sends them.

    • Anonymous

      Hmm.

      • Anonymous

         Media fails to report death of an Icon.

        • Anonymous

          Wrap this in plastic and call it Candy. Snickers.

    • Anonymous

      As usual.

      • Anonymous

         Perfect

      • Anonymous

        I won’t. But I want to log out just to like this again.

    • Roger Elder

      But if they didn’t report what they were told to report… then they wouldn’t be “in”. The US media is mostly propaganda now… Pravda may be more independent than some of the networks.