As the smoke clears from the wreckage of the Romney defeat on Tuesday, some intriguing yet disturbing facts are coming to light.

* Fewer people overall voted in 2012 (about 117 million) compared to 2008 (about 125 million).

* President Obama received some 6.6 million fewer votes  in 2012 than he did in 2008 (60,217,329 in 2012 votes compared to 66,882,230 votes in 2008).

* One would think that such a dynamic would have helped Romney win — clearly it did not.

* Incredibly, Governor Romney received nearly 1 million fewer votes in 2012 than Sen. John McCain received in 2008. (In 2008, McCain won 58,343,671 votes. In 2012, Romney won only 57,486,044 votes.)

Why? How was it possible for Romney to do worse than McCain? It will take some time to sift through all of the data. But here is some of what we know from the 2012 election day exit polls:

The President received a whopping 71% of the Hispanic vote (which was 10% of the total votes cast), compared to only 27% for Romney (McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008). Obama also won 56% of the moderate vote, which was interesting given that Romney (who got 41%) was widely perceived by the GOP base as being a “Massachusetts moderate.” The President lost married women (getting only 46% of their vote to Romney’s 53%). But won decisively among unmarried women (67% to Romney’s 31%).

That said, what I’m looking at most closely is the Christian vote, and here is where I see trouble:

• 42% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from 45% in 2008.
• 57% of the Protestant Christian vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from 54% that McCain won in 2008.
• When you zoom in a bit, you find that 21% of self-identified, white, born-again, evangelical Christians voted for President Obama in 2012. This means of the 117 million people who voted on Tuesday, about 24.7 million were evangelicals who voted for Obama. This was down from 24% of evangelicals who voted for Obama in 2008. (Of the 125 million people who voted in 2008, about 30 million were evangelicals who voted for Obama.)
• You’d think this decrease in evangelical votes for Obama would have helped win the race for Romney, but it didn’t.
• 78% of evangelical Christians voted for Romney in 2012. Yes, this was up from the 74% that McCain received in 2008, but it wasn’t nearly enough.
• To put it more precisely, about 5 million fewer evangelicals voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Meanwhile, some 4.7 million more evangelicals voted for Romney than voted for McCain. Yet Romney still couldn’t win.
• Meanwhile, 50% of the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2012. This was down from the 54% that Obama won in 2008.
• 48% of the Catholic vote went for Romney in 2012. This was up from the 45% that McCain won in 2008. Yet it still wasn’t enough.

Now consider this additional data:

• In 2008, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
• In 2012, white, born-again, evangelical Christians represented 26% of the total vote for president, according to the exit polls.
• In other words, we saw no change at all in the size of the evangelical vote, –no net gain, certainly no surge, no record evangelical turnout, despite expectations of this.
• What’s more, in 2008, 27% of the total vote for president was Catholic, according to the exit polls.
• In 2012, only 25% of the total vote for president was Catholic.
• Remarkably, this means that Romney got a higher percentage of the Catholic vote than McCain, but millions of fewer Catholics actually voted in 2012, despite having Rep. Paul Ryan, a practicing Catholic, on the ticket.

What does all this mean? A few observations:

1. During the GOP primaries in 2012, it was reported that there was record turnout by evangelical voters — they were fired up and mobilized then (though largely behind Sen. Rick Santorum.)
2. There were concerns by a number of Christian leaders going into the 2012 elections that Romney’s Mormonism might suppress evangelical and conservative voter turnout.
3. The Romney campaign worked hard to not only to win the evangelical vote but to turn out more evangelicals to the polls — but it did not work.
4. Despite Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-religious freedom record — a record presumably abhorrent both to evangelicals and conservative Catholics — Romney simply was not able to cut deeply enough into Obama’s evangelical and Catholic vote.
5. If Romney had been able win over another 3.5 million to 4 million evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – and Romney would have won the election handily.
6. It is stunning to think that 25 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with?
7. Whatever their reasons, these so-called evangelicals doomed Romney and a number of down-ballot candidates for the House and Senate.
8. This is what happens when the Church is weak and fails to disciple believers to turn Biblical faith into action.
9. Given the enormous number of evangelical Christians in the U.S., this bloc could still affect enormous positive change for their issues if they were to unify and vote for the pro-life, pro-marriage candidate as a bloc.
10. What will it take to educate, register and mobilize Christians to vote on the basis of Biblical principles, and what kind of candidates could best mobilize them? This is a critical question that Christian political leaders as well as pastors must serious consider. As we have seen, just a few million more evangelicals voting for pro-life, pro-marriage candidates could offset other demographics that are becoming more liberal.
11. That said, we need national candidates who take values issues as seriously as economic and fiscal issues, and have strong credentials on these values issues, and can talk about these issues in a winsome, compassionate, effective manner.
12. We need pastors registering voters in their churches and teaching the people in their congregations the importance of the civic duty of voting.
13. None of this should come, however, at the expense of pastors and other Christian leaders clearly, boldly and unequivocally teaching and preaching the Word, proclaiming the Gospel, and making disciples, and helping believers learn to live out their faith in a real and practical way in their communities, including being “salt” and “light” to preserve what is good in society. What we need most in America isn’t a political revival but a sweeping series of spiritual revivals — a Third Great Awakening. As men and women’s hearts are transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they will, in time, vote for the values they are internalizing from the Bible. As I wrote about in Implosion, if we don’t see a Third Great Awakening soon, I’m not convinced we will be able to turn this dear nation around in time.

————————

Please post your comments on our “Epicenter Team” page on Facebook, or send them by Twitter — @joelcrosenberg.

5 Responses to “More evidence that 2012 election was totally rigged. We have foreign corporations counting our votes, zero transparency and corrupt judges refusing to hear on the merits any and all complaints of elections fraud. If elections are not cleaned up, we will have a serious revolt. Revolt at the University of MS might be the harbinger”

1. Larry Gold
   November 8th, 2012 @ 6:19 am

   Which foreign corporations?

2. Mark
   November 8th, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

   I did not vote in 2010 and 2012. I can’t vote for corrupt people who have no integrity to keep their oath of office. If I voted I’d be condoning further corruption and lawlessness in our government. Unless we get all the money out of our election system and reduce the pay of these elected idiots, we can’t fix our elections. They are already fixed.

   Mark

3. The Right Thing
   November 8th, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

   To Larry Gold,

   Does Cesar Chavez ring a bell.

4. Elizabeth
   November 10th, 2012 @ 10:21 am

   This article is from the Western Center for Journalism, April 2012:
   (it is also been written that George Soros
   has connections to this company; whether he
   owns it or not, not clear w/o more research.)
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election. For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states–900 total jurisdictions–across the nation.

   As the largest election results reporting company in the US, SOE provides reports right down to the precinct level. But before going anywhere else, those election returns are routed to individual, company servers where the people who run them “…get ‘first look’ at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.”

   In short, “this redirects results …to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.”

   And although the votes will be cast in hometown, American precincts on Election Day, with the Barcelona-based SCYTL taking charge of the process, they will be routed and counted overseas.

   SCYTL itself is a leader in internet voting technology and in 2010 was involved in modernizing election systems for the midterm election in 14 American states.

   But although SCYTL’s self-proclaimed reputation for security had won the company the Congressionally approved task of handling internet voting for American citizens and members of the military overseas, upon opening the system for use in the District of Columbia, the University of Michigan fight song “The Victors” was suddenly heard after the casting of each ballot.

   The system had been hacked by U of M computer teachers and students in response to a challenge by SCYTL that anyone who wished to do so, might try!

   Nevertheless, in spite of warnings by experts across the nation, American soldiers overseas will once again vote via the internet in 2012.

   And because SCYTL will control the method of voting and—thanks to the purchase of SOE–the method of counting the votes as well, there “…will be no ballots, no physical evidence, no way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes…or the count.”

   The American advocacy group Project Vote has concluded that SCYTL’s internet voting system is vulnerable to attack from the outside AND the inside, a situation which could result in “…an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters…” Talk about having a flair for understatement!

   It has also been claimed that SCYTL CEO Pere Valles is a socialist who donated heavily to the 2008 Obama campaign and lived in Chicago during Obama’s time as Illinois State Senator.

   Unfortunately, given what is known about the character of Barack Obama, such rumors must be taken as serious threats to the integrity of the 2012 vote and the legitimate outcome of the election.

   Though much has been written about the threat of nationwide voting by illegals in November, it is still true that most election fraud is an “inside” job.

   And there now exists a purely electronic voting service which uses no physical ballots to which an electronic count can be matched should questions arise. Add to this the fact that the same company will have “first count” on all votes made in 14 US states and hundreds of jurisdictions in 12 others, and the stage is set for election fraud on a scale unimaginable just a decade ago.

   Perhaps Obama had reason for supreme confidence when he said “after my election” rather than “in case of” to Russian President Medvedev a week ago.

5. „Wybory” w USA już się odbyły? Satanistyczne praktyki klanu Clintonów. « Monitor Polski
   November 6th, 2016 @ 4:02 am

   […] More evidence that 2012 election was totally rigged. […]

Leave a Reply