Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723

    Can Hillary Clinton reverse the six-year decline in Democratic turnout?

    Can Hillary Clinton reverse the six-year decline in Democratic turnout?

    BY MICHAEL BARONE | MAY 20, 2015 | 5:00 AM


    Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 by running as a different kind of Democrat from previous nominees. Hillary Clinton, Anne Gearen of the Washington Post reports, is hoping to win the presidency in 2016 by running as the same kind of Democrat as the current incumbent.

    There's a certain logic in that. President Obama did win twice, while the five pre-Clinton Democratic nominees lost five of the six previous elections. But maybe it's too logical. There's also magic about presidential elections, something no arithmetic formula can capture. It's not clear that a 69-year-old Hillary Clinton in 2016 can inspire the enthusiasm that the 47-year-old Obama did in 2008.
    Camp Clinton's assumption is that their candidate can count on and expand Obama's "coalition of the ascendant" (the Atlantic's Ronald Brownstein's term). In particular, "non-whites" are an inevitably increasing share of the electorate, and Clinton strategists expect that share to grow from 28 percent in 2012 to 31 percent next year.

    But "non-whites" are not a cohesive or uniform bloc. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians act, think and vote differently. Let's look at some numbers. Blacks made up 13 percent of voters in 2008 and 2012 — slightly more than their share of population — and voted 95 and 93 percent for Obama.

    Their Obama margins within the total electorate were 12 and 11 percent, compared to 8 percent for John Kerry in 2004. It's unlikely that Hillary Clinton will generate the same black turnout or percentage as the first black president. She won't match Obama's black margin.

    As for Hispanics, the Clinton folks are apparently expecting Hispanic turnout to rise from 9 and 10 percent of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 to 13 or 14 percent in 2016. Maybe, maybe not. Clinton did carry the Hispanic vote by solid margins in the 2008 primaries, and she has been out-pandering Obama on illegal immigrant amnesty lately. But will Hispanics be enthusiastic about her? And can she increase Obama's 2012 Hispanic percentage (71 percent) against a Republican who doesn't talk of "self-deportation"? Not clear.

    Asians were just 3 percent of voters in 2012, and they are scarce in all target states but Virginia. The questionable 2014 exit poll result showed evenly split between the parties. They're not going to propel Clinton into the White House.

    Brownstein's ascendant groups also include young voters, the millennials. Clinton has been promising them (without saying how it would be paid for) cheap college, a higher minimum wage and paid family leave.

    But millennials' support for Democrats has been declining. In 2008 Obama's margin among under-30s amounted to 6 percent of the total electorate — almost all his national margin. In 2012, that number was down to 4 percent. In the 2014 House popular vote, the Democratic edge was down to 1.2 percent. Raise that to 2 percent, to account for higher millennial turnout in a presidential year, and you're still seeing Democratic decline.

    Will Clinton's belated support of same-sex marriage, which the Supreme Court may well legalize nationally next month, reverse that trend 17 months later in November 2016? There's an impression widespread among political reporters that Obama has produced a surge in turnout among voters. The numbers tell a different story.

    Turnout surged sharply during George W. Bush's presidency but has sagged during Obama's. In retrospect, the 69 million votes Obama won in 2008 was a peak. Democratic turnout has been downhill ever since.

    In 2012 Obama won 66 million votes — 3.6 million fewer than four years before. In contrast, George W. Bush in 2004 got 12 million more votes than he had in 2000. Even in the 10 target states, where the Obama campaign worked to maximize Democratic turnout, it was down 440,000 in 2012 from 2008.

    You see the same pattern in the popular vote for House of Representatives. Democrats got 42 million votes in 2006, 39 million in 2010 and 36 million in 2014. The Obama presidency has depressed rather than stimulated Democratic turnout.

    It's not hard to imagine that many Democrat-inclined voters will vote for Clinton despite the deleted emails, the six-figure speech fees, the contributions from foreign governments. The argument that will sway them is that she's better than Republicans on the issues.
    It's harder to imagine these voters generating the enthusiasm that drove up Democratic turnout in 2008 and reversing the trend that is apparent to anyone who looks at the numbers.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ca...rticle/2564738

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723
    Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

    Rachel Alexander | Nov 11, 2012


    There were many factors that hurt Mitt Romney and favored Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. The Democrats portrayed Romney in the worst light possible; as a wealthy, out of touch millionaire who wanted to return women to the 1800's. The left wing media predictably did everything it could to perpetuate that false caricature. Obama's race was an advantage; voters of all persuasions, particularly minorities, still cannot get over the allure of the first black president. The 47% of Americans on welfare were predisposed to vote for the food stamp president over Romney, wanting the free goodies to keep on giving, despite the long-term unsustainability.

    In spite of those odds, polls indicated that Romney was going to win the election. The economy is close to Great Depression era conditions, and unemployment is almost as high as when Obama entered office. Economic conditions became so dire after Obama took office it prompted the rise of an entire new movement, the Tea Party. Presidents rarely win reelection when the economy is in the tank.

    So how did Romney lose a race that numerous reputable polls and pundits predicted would be an easy win, based on historical patterns? The most realistic explanation is voter fraud in a few swing states. According to the Columbus Dispatch, one out of every five registered voters in Ohio is ineligible to vote. In at least two counties in Ohio, the number of registered voters exceeded the number of eligible adults who are of voting age. In northwestern Ohio's Wood County, there are 109 registered voters for every 100 people eligible to vote. An additional 31 of Ohio's 88 counties have voter registration rates over 90%, which most voting experts regard as suspicious. Obama miraculously won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland, and received over 99% of the vote where GOP inspectors were illegally removed.

    The inflated numbers can't just reflect voters who have moved, because the average voting registration level nationwide is only 70%. The vast majority of voters over the 70% level are not voting because they want to, they are voting because someone is getting them to cast a vote, one way or another. Those 31 counties are most likely the largest counties in Ohio, representing a majority of Ohio voters. This means the number of votes cast above the 70% typical voter registration level easily tops 100,000, the margin Obama won Ohio by.

    Videographer James O'Keefe, known for his undercover videos exposing left wing fraud, caught a Virginia Democratic Congressman's son on video in October explaining how to commit voter fraud. Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran,told O'Keefe's videographer that in order to make a vote for someone else, you'd need two pieces of identification, such as a utility bill, explaining, "they can fake a utility bill with ease, you know?" He went on to advise the videographer that he should also call the voter and pretend to be a polling company in order to make sure the voter isn't intending to vote. He said that Democrat attorneys would be located in the polling places to assist him if challenged casting one of these illegal votes.

    In another video, O'Keefe's videographer tells a DNC staffer from Obama's Organizing for America that she intends to vote in both Texas and Florida. The staffer laughs and says, "It's cool." The staffer then prints out a voter registration form for the undercover videographer and advises her on what to do if she gets caught.

    These are just the known instances of attempted voter fraud. How many instances occurred that were not discovered? Obama's Organizing for America looked up voters in swing states – many who would not have bothered voting otherwise – and got them to vote. How did they get them to vote? They may have given them rides to the polls, they may have offered to fill out and return their ballots for them, or they may have voted ballots for the ones who were not going to vote.

    Many on the left believe there is nothing wrong with committing fraud in order to ensure Obama's reelection. It is a common tenet on the left that the ends justify the means.
    Saul Alinsky, the 1960's radical who inspired Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, taught community organizers like Obama that dishonesty is acceptable if it achieves your political goals. And when caught, Alinsky teaches radicals to deny the wrongdoing and change the topic to put their accusers on the defensive. One Obama supporter brazenly posted on Facebook that he was voting four times for Obama, asserting that the ends justify the means.

    Aiding Obama's win was a devious suppression of the conservative vote. The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

    Voter fraud has been in the works for years. At least 52 employees of the left wing group ACORN have been convicted of voter registration fraud. ACORN itself was convicted of the crime of "compensation," paying its registration canvassers bonuses to exceed their quotas. In 2008, 36% of ACORN's voter registrations were invalidated. Left wing political pundit Chris Matthews admitted last year that pretending to call someone from a polling company, then voting their ballot for them, has been happening in big cities since the 1950's. He admitted he knows that kind of voter fraud takes place in Philadelphia.
    Strong-arming people into voting who really have no desire to vote undermines our form of government. People do not choose to vote because they are uninformed about the issues and candidates, are lazy, cynical, or are content with the status quo. Voting someone else's ballot for them is cheating the system and essentially giving yourself two votes.

    When people claim that Obama won because the economy was improving, or because Americans generally think he is doing a good job, it is not true. He won through dishonest methods and rhetoric. Many of the votes cast in the swing states were cajoled, some legally and perhaps even more illegally, into supporting him. If voter fraud becomes acceptable, then maybe Donald Trump is right: it's time for a revolution.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...raud/page/full





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-20-2015, 05:40 PM
  2. Hillary's Pathetic Record- When has Hillary Clinton ever been right on foreign policy
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-30-2014, 03:43 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 04:53 AM
  4. Kagan Supported Policy of Reverse Discrimination, Clinton Do
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 08:07 PM
  5. Hillary, Hillary Clinton..por ella voto yo! (for her I vote)
    By legalatina in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 03:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •