Maybe Obama Is Right; Republicans Have a Problem with Simple Math

The political “experts” and their media drones have been telling us since November 7 that President Obama won the election because, and only because, he won the Hispanic vote by a large margin.  As usual, what passes for intelligent analysis inside the Beltway has a tenuous (at best) association with reality.  Seeing the Republicans fall all over themselves to introduce immigration “reform” measures should alleviate any doubt that their agenda would have been any different if Romney had won.  The “we have to change our tone to attract Hispanic voters” argument is being used as convenient cover for what has been the “let’s cave on amnesty and raise immigration levels” plan that was in the works all along.  They must be hoping that no one looks at the actual poll results and realizes that Romney lost not because he underperformed with Hispanic voters but because he couldn’t turn out his base.

Some are paying attention, and it’s not just us at FAIR.  Jamelle Bouie pointed out in The Washington Post last week that “No, more Latino votes wouldn’t have helped Romney win.”  According to Bouie’s calculations, Romney would have had to have received 63 percent of the Hispanic vote (4.5 million additional votes) in order to best Obama in the popular vote.  It is extremely unlikely that any position Romney took on immigration could have changed that many minds, especially considering that in numerous polls Latino voters ranked immigration far down their list of priorities.

But because many Hispanic voters voted in states that weren’t competitive, Bouie looked at Ohio and Virginia, two states Romney needed to take the White House.  In those two states, Romney would have had to have won “the overwhelming majority of Latino voters, upwards of 90 percent, in order to overtake the president” because the share of the Hispanic vote in Ohio and Virginia is small.  The notion that Romney lost the race because Hispanic voters turned against him over his immigration policy (which was what really?) is just plain silly.

Endorsing amnesty will not attract Hispanic voters to the Republican Party in the short-term, but it will create more Democratic voters in the long-term, if we pay credence to history and current voting trends.  It would also alienate the Republican base even more.  This approach, not surprisingly, is the exact strategy that Democrats (out of the kindness of their hearts, of course) are suggesting the Republicans adopt.  If this is a winning recipe for the Republican Party, then maybe Karl Rove is a genius after all, because it seems daft to us regular folk.

About Author


The latest guest opinion pieces from FAIR.


  1. avatar

    This post makes an excellent point about the apparent inability of the Republicans to do even simple mathematical analysis of the exit poll results. It should be noted that the referenced article by Jamelle Bouie also does the math incorrectly. To erase an overall 4.5 million vote margin for Obama would have required only half that number (2.25 million) of Latinos to switch from Obama to Romney. Thus, Romney would have needed only 45 percent of the Latino vote to win, not the 63 percent calculated by Bouie. Romney didn’t even need a majority of the Latino vote, because he won the non-Latino vote. Nevertheless, the chance that Romney – or any Republican candidate, no matter what their immigration policy – could have won 45% of the Latino vote is virtually nil. No Republican in the last 9 elections has won more than 40%, and the average was 31%, which is the percentage that McCain – who favored amnesty – won in 2008. However, if Romney could have increased his share of the non-Latino vote from 50% to just 52%, he would have won. His failure to do that is really what cost him the election.

  2. avatar
    Living With Open Eyes on

    I don’t know which party to support any more. I’ve voted for both parties-the results are the same. Illegal immigrants keep pouring over our borders, get jobs, get credit, buy homes and businesses, have children who are citizens, and never leave. If they get into trouble with the law they buy new identification , get new jobs with their “clean” records, and stay here. The only way they leave is if and when they want to.Big business – Republican and Democrat – wants them here and will do nothing to endanger their cheap labor force.

  3. avatar

    True, Romney didn’t lose only because of the gap in the Latino vote. But I haven’t heard anyone claim that. You see, there was also a huge gap in the youth vote. And Asian Americans. And women. And blacks. So no it wasn’t just because he didn’t turn out enough white guys – although that was part of it – but because his policies and character were so unimpressive – including “self-deportation – that people didn’t want to vote for him.

    They voted for Obama who had more positive policies on immigration.

    • avatar
      Thomas Stafford on

      They voted for Santa Claus. They do not see the trap that is attached to the free cheese that the socialists are handing out.

    • avatar

      If Republicans start acting like lthe liberal Democrats in order to win more votes, then what’s the point of having Republicans? If Rubio and his like don’t stand for more than that, then the Pox on them!

    • avatar
      richard harris on

      10% of self-described conservatives voted for Obama. That was more than the margin of victory. That combined with the massive voter fraud and the George Soros supplied rigged vote counting computers were the reasons for Obama’s victory.

    • avatar

      The exit poll did NOT indicate that Romney lost because of his “self-deportation” policy (i.e., his proposal to enforce the existing law against employers who hire illegal immigrants, resulting in the illegal immigrants voluntarily returning home), so you have no facts to support your assertion. The exit poll had a question on how to handle illegal immigration, but it did NOT provide that policy as one of its options, so we have no way to know how many voters preferred or opposed it. Neither did the poll ask voters whether they would have voted for Romney if he had the same immigration policy as Obama. Romney lost for many reasons, but there is no evidence that his immigration policy was one of them.

  4. avatar

    Its Time the Open Border Extremists in America Get Their Lies Exposed

    No, its not racist to oppose amnesty or support IMMEDIATE depopulation/environment in America.

    No, American elections are not run by one LATINO minority of the voters, elections are won by getting a majority of all the votes from all ethnic groups.

    We’re mostly all sick of hearing about ’em.

  5. avatar

    Very well written. It puts the lie to the contention that Republicans will win by outpandering the Democrats. This points out that with all other things the same that Romney would have needed to win 63 % of the Latin vote to capture just the popular vote. That is never going to happen, unless they become a carbon copy of the Democrats on social spending. What the Republicans have done in the last two elections is put up flawed candidates. I don’t care if you like Palin or not, she scared the hell out of a lot of independents. Polls showed that. With a different vp it would have been much closer. And a rich guy who then picks a vp who is even more to the right of him did himself no favors. You go for the base in the primaries and then you pick a vp to get some of the independents. It’s common sense. Did anyone think a moderate vp candidate was going to cause GOP voters to go for Obama? Come on. I have heard lots of Democrats who say they disagree with the Republicans on every issue but immigration. Trying to get the Hispanic vote is a dog chasing it’s tail. Ain’t gonna happen so figure out a real way to win.

    • avatar
      Thomas Stafford on

      Leland, Palin may have won by herself without having to carry McCain. Ryan would have won bhy himself if he would have been turned loose to run against Obama’s record. Conservatives will not win by becoming “Democrat Lite”. To paraphrase Ron Reagan “No Pale Pastels”. It is time to begin trying to re-educate the voting public on the true costs of open borders and “free stuff”. It is clear that the media won’t do it . .