Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bad Thoughts

(2,522 posts)
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:45 PM Mar 2016

Obama needed 16.5 million independents and Republicans to vote for him to defeat Romney

Using some rough estimates about the composition of the 2012 electorate, President Obama needed some significant percentage of the non-Democratic voting population to vote for him to be re-elected.

He received approximately 44.5 million votes from Democrats alone, which would put him about 16.5 million short of Romney's total in the popular vote. That means Obama needed about 45.5% of the so-called independents and Republicans to vote for him.

Of course, popular vote does not elect the president: the Electoral College does. Nevertheless, even 45.5% is not a number that can be easily dismissed.

Clinton or Sanders will need them.

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama needed 16.5 million independents and Republicans to vote for him to defeat Romney (Original Post) Bad Thoughts Mar 2016 OP
Yes. Anybody who's watches American politics for more than a cycle knows this. apnu Mar 2016 #1
Most independents aren't the middle. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #4
Generally, they are more right ... very right. Bad Thoughts Mar 2016 #5
by "middle" I mean not Democratic or Republican. apnu Mar 2016 #7
It's funny. If it's Clinton she might get them revbones Mar 2016 #2
Fighting Fascism created some shakey coalitions. eom. Bad Thoughts Mar 2016 #3
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling a broken candidacy! Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #6

apnu

(8,754 posts)
1. Yes. Anybody who's watches American politics for more than a cycle knows this.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:48 PM
Mar 2016

Every election is a battle for America's middle, those who don't subscribe to one or the other of the two main parties. Secondary to that, each election is about getting loyalists out to vote.

Both sides need the Independents.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
4. Most independents aren't the middle.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:53 PM
Mar 2016

They are the left and right. Hillary is going out of her way to piss off the left, and the right will never vote for her.

Bad Thoughts

(2,522 posts)
5. Generally, they are more right ... very right.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 02:11 PM
Mar 2016

They will never vote for a Democrat. However, there are a lot of "left-leaners" whom any Dem will need.

apnu

(8,754 posts)
7. by "middle" I mean not Democratic or Republican.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 02:38 PM
Mar 2016

Yes, most Americans fall somewhere on the left or the right. Some closer to the center and some further away.

But we're talking about "Independents", meaning people who do not specify a party affiliation, ergo if they are not Democratic, or Republican, or Green, or Consitution, or Libertarian, or whatever else small party you can think of, they are "independent"

So my point stands since we are talking about parties and not political leanings.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
2. It's funny. If it's Clinton she might get them
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:49 PM
Mar 2016

but only because of fear of Trump rather than her actually earning them.

What does that say about you as a candidate, being only elected because you were up against a fascist?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Obama needed 16.5 million...