Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Are Some Votes More Vaulable Than Others?

We've heard a lot recently about how if Mitt Romney has any chance he better win a certain percentage of votes of 'this or that' group of voters.  Recently it has been the Latino [or as the main stream media likes to call them, the Hispanic] vote. You will see on almost every interview with a Romney supporter a question by the liberal media, "what is Mitt Romney going to do to win over more of the Hispanic vote?"  or "Why is Mitt Romney having so much trouble with the Hispanic vote?"  You even here the 'conservative' George Will state: "If Mitt Romney does not win 40% of the Hispanic vote he will lose the election, period."

Here's my question.  Why does it always work one way?  Why is it always the Republican and conservative candidate who must do better with this group or that?  Have you ever heard one reporter ask President Obama or one of his spokesman ask why isn't he doing better [more popular] with this group or that? 

Have you heard one media pundit ask why Obama can't do better with the white blue collar worker or the male vote? How about the Mormon vote?  There are 6.1 million Mormons in the United States of America. The battleground state of Nevada has 9% of the population as Mormons, in Arizona it is 6%, and in the other battleground states it is 3-4% of the population.  And I would submit that Mormons are registered and vote in a higher percentage than their population statistics.

Has anyone heard President Obama or one of his spokesman being asked what is he going to do to win more of the Mormon vote?  Will they question how president Obama can win the election if Mitt Romney wins most of the Mormon vote?  Will we hear George Will opine that if Barack Obama does not win 40% of the Mormon vote, he will lose the election?

Aren't tens of thousands of Mormon votes in a close race in a state just as valuable as tens of thousands of Hispanic votes?  Couldn't that spell the difference in a razor thin election? If, because of the Mormon vote, Mitt Romney wins both Nevada and Arizona, he could be well on his way in winning the election. But I have not heard one political pundit surmise that.

Some might say, there are more Hispanics than Mormons, that's why the media concentrates on the Hispanic vote. If that's the reason, why does the media even mention the Hispanic vote because there are many more white blue collar workers than Hispanics, so why doesn't the media seem like they are worried how poorly Obama is doing with "bitter, clinger" crowd?

It looks like, in the eyes of the main stream media, some votes are more important than other votes?
Update:  More incredulous statements from liberal Democrats.  The latest NY Times/CBS poll has Romney leading Obama 45-43%.  While this looks good for Romney to the average viewer,  Bob Shrum, democrat political consultant, said [on the Meet The Press round table] this poll was actually good news for Obama because it showed that president Obama had a 48% lead among Hispanics.  He said Romney couldn't win with such a huge deficit of the Hispanic vote.  Huh?   Hispanics favor Obama by a huge margin in this poll, but Romney still leads Obama by 2 points even with that deficit.  And Shrum says this is good for Obama?  What will Shrum say after Romney wins the election?  Will Shrum say 'yes, Romney won the election but Obama creamed him with the Hispanic vote'? 

Once again I must ask from this anecdote, do Democrats think some votes are more important than other votes?

No comments: