The next four days are going to be wild. If you are faint at heart, then you might want to “unplug” from the internet, TV, and radio. Don’t let anything make you so despondent that you don’t vote. This election is now a turnout-based election. The one who can turn out their voters is the winner.
Dan Henninger wrote Romney’s Secret Voting Bloc. Here is an excerpt.
But there’s one major voting group that’s fallen off the map since the primaries.
The evangelical vote.
When Mitt Romney’s 2012 candidacy was gaining traction in the primaries, the conventional wisdom instantly conveyed that the evangelical vote, skeptical of Mormonism, would sink him.
What if in Ohio next week the opposite is true? There and in other swing states—Wisconsin, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida—the evangelical vote is flying beneath the media’s radar. It’s a lot of voters not to notice. In the 2008 presidential vote, they were 30% of the vote in Ohio, 31% in Iowa and 26% in Wisconsin.
There are establishment Republicans as well as Democrats who have the evangelical vote off their radar. Their wives don’t want to associate with “those people.” Some pundits think the simple-minded hicks just blew it when they elected, in the primary, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Debra Fischer. They aren’t worldly enough for Washington, DC. We the People will see about that. Methinks some of these establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Charlie Crist, and Chuck Hagel are more worried about them winning rather than losing. On the other hand, as conservatives, we want to elect more Tea Party type senators.
Jay Cost wrote Why Romney is Likely to Win. Here is an excerpt.
After the Great Depression, the Republican brand was in tatters and the Democrats seemed to have saved the nation with the New Deal. The result was a forty-year period of Democratic dominance in party identification. The two Republican presidents between FDR and Ronald Reagan were Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, and their paths to office were peculiar. Eisenhower could have won the presidency running as anything, and Nixon required a crack in the Democratic coalition, winning just 43 percent of the vote in 1968.
During this period, it simply was not enough for a successful GOP candidate to win independents and self-identified Republicans. Barring a substantial third-party challenge from the Democratic side, a victorious Republican had to pull significant crossover support from the Democratic party. This is why Gerald Ford lost the presidency in 1976, despite winning independent voters by 11 points; Jimmy Carter carried enough Democrats to secure victory.
But the New Deal coalition by that point was fractured badly, and it finally broke into pieces in 1980. Democrats had, prior to that, enjoyed a 10-point or greater identification edge over the GOP, but that year it fell to just 4 points. Since 1980, it has averaged about 3 ½ points. And because Republican candidates typically hold their party together better than Democrats (or, put another way, there are almost always more Democratic defectors than Republican defectors), the effective edge has been even smaller.
From 1932 to 1980, the Democrats had unified control of the Congress for all but four years. That is an extraordinary level of dominance, unprecedented in American history, and speaks to the overwhelming advantage the Democrats had due to the Great Depression. But since then, the Democratic edge has collapsed, the Republicans have drawn to parity, and now we see control of Congress regularly swing back and forth. The reason is simple: Independent voters hold the keys to Capitol Hill.
The same goes for the presidency. Between 1932 and 1980 Democrats won eight of twelve presidential elections because the country was simply more Democratic. All four of the Republican victories came under unique circumstances, be it a war hero or a crack in the Democratic coalition. But since 1980, Republicans have won four presidential elections to the Democrats three, with one being a virtual tie. What’s more, the Perot phenomenon of 1992 remains a testament to the power of the independent vote.
Some additional details to Jay Cost’s column include the following.
Whether Dan Henninger’s evangelical vote or Jay Cost’s independents are the key bloc in 2012, the voter turnout for Mitt Romney must be great. It’s about time we see the Democrat brand as beaten up in 2012 as the Republican brand was in 1932. The major difference is that instead of an identification edge from supporting socialism and unionism, let’s have an identification edge supporting market capitalism and individualism.