|
Title: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Indy Texas on March 19, 2012, 11:24:18 PM By "residual voting" I mean votes for candidates who are no longer in the race. In 2008, Romney and Thompson both got 2%+ in a lot of states after they had already left the race. Compare that to this year - Perry hasn't even cracked 1% in any states after his withdrawal and Bachmann has done even worse. The only one to even garner a footnote is Jon Huntsman, who got 2% in Vermont on Super Tuesday.
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 19, 2012, 11:40:33 PM Rick Perry actually did better percentage-wise in Vermont than he did in New Hampshire while he was still running.
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 20, 2012, 12:45:03 AM Buddy Roemer just got 3rd place in Puerto Rico. LOL at Gingrich and Paul for losing to him.
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 20, 2012, 12:48:34 AM Why waste your vote on a failed candidate?
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2012, 12:53:21 AM Why waste your vote on a failed candidate? The question is why so little residual voting this year compared to other years. It helps to read the thread. Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 20, 2012, 12:58:12 AM Why waste your vote on a failed candidate? The question is why so little residual voting this year compared to other years. It helps to read the thread. My answer makes complete sense and is all encompassing. Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: J. J. on March 20, 2012, 01:00:03 AM Why waste your vote on a failed candidate? The question is why so little residual voting this year compared to other years. It helps to read the thread. That might be the answer. Since there is still a race, people are not casting protest votes. They think that, since their votes could make a difference they will vote for someone that has a chance of winning. I also think Winfield might have been drinking. :) Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Eraserhead on March 20, 2012, 01:40:49 AM Cain got over 1% in South Carolina.
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Reginald on March 20, 2012, 02:12:12 AM It's a good question. Perhaps Bachmann and Perry were only ever viewed as contenders not because of their own attributes, but just by virtue of being the most attractive notRomney at their various peaks (this goes for Cain as well, but he had other issues of course. Huntsman never gained traction and probably wouldn't have done too much better in most of these states had he wasted even more of his father's money and prolonged the inevitable). Once they dropped out, the anti-Romney crowd abandoned them almost completely because Gingrich/Santorum became the candidate most capable of stopping Romney, which has been the #1 goal for a large chunk of the GOP electorate this whole primary season.
Title: Re: Why so little residual voting this year? Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 20, 2012, 07:00:28 AM Cain got over 1% in South Carolina. That was because of Colbert. |