IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
Posts: 31,840
Political Matrix E: -6.19, S: -6.43
|
|
« on: November 19, 2014, 11:36:58 PM » |
|
When most of us look at elections, we tend to be focused on just the percentages. But if you look in terms of raw votes, you can sometimes be shocked at what you find. For example, in Vermont, where Scott Milne almost upset Peter Shumlin in a race nobody thought was competitive, Milne actually received 5,000 less votes than Romney got in 2012, even though Romney lost the state 67-31. Pretty crazy.
Now, how is this relevant to Walker? In both 2010 and 2014, Walker actually got less raw votes than John McCain did in 2008, even as he was losing the state to Obama 56-42.
McCain 2008: 1,262,393 Walker 2014: 1,259,021 Walker 2010: 1,128,941
However, it's worth noting in the recall he did outperform John McCain, getting 1,335,585 (though still less than the 1,407,966 Romney got).
Is it just me, or does this make Walker look a lot less formidable? I still think he'd be a strong candidate, but this certainly puts things in a different light. In addition, I have to wonder how many Obama/Walker/Walker/Obama/Baldwin/Walker voters there actually are. I'm assuming it's not many, and that Democratic voters simply just don't turn out in off years, a problem replicated across the entire country.
|