- ‹ previous
- 5300 of 8816
- next ›
Another Reason to Expect Dem Victory in '08: Low GOP Turnout
From time to time, members of the liberal blogosphere will ask their brethren to slow the '08 optimism. Yes, the Republican frontrunners are all comically out of step with the GOP base, but one of them has to win the primary, and at that point the winner's moderate stances will make him appealing to independents. It may be a tougher road for the Dems than anyone thinks.
My response is this. Yes, some independents may find Romney's previous embrace of gay rights appealing, and some may find Giuliani's pro-choice position attractive, and yet others may find McCain's history of bucking the Republican party line honest and refreshing. I'll concede that: let's say the Republicans manage as much support from independents at the Democrats do.
The Republicans are still more likely to lose. Why? Because the Republican base is so depressed by their options and so sick of the mismanagement of the people they sent to the White House last time that they won't vote. And now my theory has evidence to back it up:
In Kentucky's gubernatorial primary, held yesterday, 348,759 Dems cast votes in the Democratic primary. Only 202,131 Republicans cast votes in the GOP one, despite the GOP race being higher profile. That's less than two-thirds, and in a reliably red state! It's irrefutable: Republican voters are disillusioned, and disillusioned voters don't make contributions, don't walk precincts, and don't head to the polling booth on election day.
Now consider this: if just five percent of the voters who voted for Bush in 2004 choose to stay home in 2008, and the Democratic nominee gets the same number of votes as Kerry, the Democrat wins the popular vote. You can find 2004 results here, do the math yourself.
And the Democrats' X-factor? No Karl Rove pulling get-out-the-vote magic tricks out of his hat.
This blog entry is way off base. Kentucky holds closed primaries, open only to voters who were members of the party on Dec. 31. Republican registration is just over 1 million, Democratic just under 1.6 million. The turnout rate among Republicans was 20 percent, among Democrats 22 percent. In Kentucky primaries, Republicans typically run about 2 percentage points behind Democrats in turnout. So there's no news here.
At the risk of stating the obvious, 18 months is a long time. We can wish the election was here and look at whatever indicators including the depressed state of the GOP base, but the election isn't now and we don't know what will happen. We couldn't predict Florida in 2000, Wellstone in 2002, Ohio 2004, and last year our (Minnesota) taxophobic governor won by a hair when Republicans lost everything on the ballot thanks to a combination of things in the last week that erased the Democratic candidate's lead. So we just don't know.
What we do know is we have a better chance by acting like one vote will decide things. Even getting a vote for a blowout race might have a coattail effect on other races.
To respond to Al Cross:
Al's numbers are correct -- turnout for Democrats in yesterday's primary was around 22% and turnout for Republicans was around 20%. However, if you check 2004 presidential numbers, Democratic turnout was 65.2% while Republican turnout was slightly higher at 66.5%.
So while turnout in yesterday's election was 2% higher for the Dems, it was roughly 1.5% higher for the Republicans in 2004. Assuming the lack of interest that comes with off-cycle elections affects both parties equally, you can take this as a sign of growing disillusionment in GOP voters. Are there a lot of variables here -- yes. Are we still 18 months from the election -- yes. But this isn't an exact science. I think there is evidence of a rough trend.
And it doesn't need to be said that presidential elections are so close these days that any degree of added apathy on one side can affect the outcome.
Moreover, the legitimacy of Kentucky's results as evidence aside, the rest of the argument is still valid. Consider a new poll taken in Iowa that shows only 29 percent of Republican voters are satisfied with the GOP presidential field, while 65 percent of Democratic voters are. Dissatisfied voters don't vote. Simple as that.
Poll numbers here: http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?
module=articles&func=display&aid=1881&ptid=9
Mr. Stein,
Just to monkey-wrench the numbers some more, consider the historical swings in the electorate in terms of which party holds congress and which party the presidency. You'll notice that the American public as a whole really does attempt to separate the the two branches by having one party in charge of congress, and an opposing party the executive branch. I do believe this election will hold up the wisdom in that separation, because even the dyed in the wool Dems (or Repugs!) do not wish to see either party control both. Translation=if the Republicans can come up with even a 'tolerable' candidate, you'll see good, god-fearing Dems voting Democrat for everything on the ballot--except president. It is the only real check and or balance left to the electorate now--I'm thinking they'll utilize it.
Francis, your argument doesn't hold much water considering that we have just come out of 6 years of Republicans controlling everything. And considering how they sickened people by their behavior, it's quite possible that many people will just refuse to vote Republican. Of course, after seeing what total control did to the Republicans, many people may be unwilling to give that same control to the Democrats.
But in any case, the last 6 years invalidate your theory.
The Democrats got elected in 06 with the promise to get us out of Iraq. We found out that was just a trick. They gave Bush everything he wanted on the Iraq funding because the Democratic Party is dominated by AIPAC as well. It is so obvious. We have been betrayed. The Democrats will be punished by the voters in 08 for their fraud. There are plenty of third parties out their for a voter to express their protest. A person(voter) gets respect by punishing the candidates that betrayed them.
Some of us are old enough to remember all the celebrating upon Nixon's resignation, followed by Ford's very controversial pardon of him. Some of us actually own up to taking part in it.
It was widely said that this heralded the end of the Republican party as a factor in American politics for decades to come.
"Decades" turned out to be exactly 4 years.
Ladies & Gentlemen, Boys & Girls, you need to accept what history tells us here; that political fortunes in the USofA change in no time at all.
Talk about Kentucky Republicans being disillusioned with their party--what about Democrats? Look at all the Democrats in Congress who caved in to Bush and voted to continue funding the U.S. occupation of Iraq without timelines to end the occupation. What's the point in voting for Republican or Democrat politicians when both parties continue to ignore the will of the American people? Who do they think elected them in the first place--the corporations and special interests who paid for their election?
A Democratic Congress voted to fully fund the war in Iraq, as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill -- to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base. The Deomocrats will pay for the sellout in 08.
You've forgotten to mention the republican x-factor, the capacity and unabashed willingness to create a national security "terrorist" crisis a few weeks before the election. Republicans have shown they'll do anything to win an election, and sadly, Democrats will do anything to lose.