2004 George W. Bush Beats Barack Obama’s 2012 Numbers – “Mandate”?

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: They are already working hard to spin these numbers. One “expert” from George Mason University estimates the turnout was 60% of eligible voters. Take a look at the numbers below and tell me how in the hell someone could honestly come to that conclusion…

UPDATE 2: Diane Sawyer was shitfaced during the entire ABC coverage last night. She was hammered and serving as the co-host of ABC’s election night coverage. That gives you a little insight into what a joke this is to these people. At one point it looks like George is about to tell her to get her drunk ass off the anchor desk. It’s pathetic. ABC presented a drunk lush as their face of the election all night long. Fitting really.

UPDATE 3: (H/T David) Glenn Greenwald and I see this kinda differently to say the least:

“So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them.” Glenn Greenwald

UPDATE 4: How nice. Paul Ryan didn’t have to give up his seat in congress for his fake run for office.

——–

National Headlines: “W” BEATS “O”!!!

In an near record setting low turnout rate (which may in fact be a record setting low turnout rate) and with an estimated 18 million more eligible voters, Barack Obama garnered less actual votes than George W. Bush did in 2004 and secured a smaller percentage of the votes than “W” did.

In short, in their re-election bid campaigns, Barack Obama just lost to George W. Bush. Chew on that for a while.

Despite the increase in eligible voters, 14.8 million fewer votes were cast this year than in 2008 and of those the Democrats lost more votes than Republicans at almost a 3 to 1 ratio… and the pundits are talking about an “Obama Mandate”?

These numbers tell us a VERY different story than what the pundits are saying right now.. The fact is, the policies of Obama administration are driving the people of this country AWAY from participation in government, not toward it. They selected Romney to fail and he did everything he could during the campaign to ensure that Obama would remain in office, but the only thing driving masses of voters away from Obama, is Obama’s policies. And that’s a fact. Another fact is those policies are less popular than W’s warmongering and lying to get us into war in 2003. That’s a fact as well.

Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States. Romney was hand picked to lose. This is what I have been saying for over a year now. Not surprisingly, the MSM and the super-pundits are claiming the Obama brand of Neo-conservative Liberalism now has a mandate from the people:

“Both sides claim, with some justification, a mandate from the voters.” AP

“President Obama’s reelection represents a victory for the Democratic ideal of activist government and a mandate for more of it” AlterNet

“Another close presidential election — accompanied by split control of Congress, with Republicans maintaining control of the House and Democrats holding the Senate — might lead many to the conclusion that President Obama doesn’t have much of a mandate. Quite the contrary; he can have a robust mandate if he chooses to use it.” Baltimore Sun

While the victory may not be that questionable (the republicans are already being derided for choosing horrible candidates Romney and Ryan and running a horrible campaign) the “mandate” certainly is.

Truth be told, in some ways, the Democrats lost this election well, they lost more votes that the Republicans did and in fact more people voted for Bush in 2004 than they did for Obama last night. Let me explain…

In 2008 there were 212.7 million eligible voters in the United States. 61.7% of those voters turned out to cast a ballot in the presidential race. Some say this was a historically high rate in the U.S. but as is the case with most of the Obamaoid folklore, that’s not entirely accurate. In 1960, when a guy named Jack went to Washington, the turnout rate that year was 67%.

In 2008, 131.3 million people voted in the presidential race: “Obama garnered 69.5 million votes (52.9%) to 59.9 million (45.7%) for McCain”

Now let’s fast forward to 2012.

If you look at the eligible voter numbers from 1996 thru 2008 you notice a trend increase of about 9 million every 4 years. Since I cannot find an exact count of the number of eligible voters for this year, and since I did find a number for the eligible voters from 2010 which tends to support this trend (217 million in 2010 which would be about 5 million increase) I am going to estimate the eligible voters in 2012 to be around 221.7 million.

As flawed as that may be right now, we will use that number as a baseline.

What are the election numbers this year? Not good.

• Obama – 59,584, 123 for 50.3%
• Romney – 56,961,230 for 48.1%
• total votes cast in presidential race = 116,545,353
• estimated total of eligible voters who did not vote = 105,154,647 (much higher than est. 90 million)
• estimated eligible voters in 2012 = 221,700,000 (based on historical increases)
• estimated voter turnout percentage = 52.5%

Now that is a huge difference in voter turnout and percentage of eligible voters especially for the democrats. Think about that for a minute. With an estimated 9 million more voters eligible, there was a drop off of 14.8 million votes cast overall. That’s a drop of 11.2%. That’s big.

With an increase in eligible voters, Obama still lost almost exactly 10 million votes compared to the republican candidate who only lost 3 million from 2008.

That is a wildly significant set of numbers when taken by themselves, but let’s put them into perspective comparative to the last 8 presidential elections (source):

As you can see from these numbers, only the Clinton re-election of 1996 had a lower turnout rate for the presidential election than this one did. And my numbers might even be higher because of the estimate.

Notice this… more people turned out to vote in the 2004 election when the hated George W. Bush was seeking re-election. And here’s the real kicker: George Bush beat Barack Obama in their respective re-election campaigns. I shit you not.

As hated as he was in his re-election bid, with an estimated 18 million more eligible voters, George Bush beat Obama in both the popular vote and the percentage of eligible voters.

How’s that for a “mandate”?

Notice this as well…

• Obama had 50.3% Bush had 50.7%
• Romney had 48.1% Kerry had 48.3%

Now what are the odds that the voter percentages in two different re-election bids would be so close when the actual turnout rate was catastrophically different? Remember, turnout in 2004 was 60.1 % of the eligible voters while this year it’s about 52.5%. Huge difference. Almost a record setting low turnout.

All of that is supposed to equal a mandate to continue the policies that the American people OBVIOUSLY don’t approve of.

Only in America folks.