Posted on 07/20/2009 1:43:08 PM PDT by Steelfish
Voting rate dips as older whites stay home
About 63.6 percent of the nation's eligible voters cast ballots in November
WASHINGTON - For all the attention generated by Barack Obama's candidacy, the share of eligible voters who actually cast ballots in November declined for the first time in a dozen years.
The reason: Older whites with little interest in backing either Barack Obama or John McCain stayed home.
Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of the nation's eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, voted last November.
Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters — virtually all of them minorities — the turnout relative to the population of eligible voters was a decrease from 63.8 percent in 2004.
Ohio and Pennsylvania were among those showing declines in white voters, helping Obama carry those battleground states.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I don't think you know what topic you're discussing. You made a statement about voters who think they can punish Republicans by staying home. You don't understand why some voters stay home. They stay home because the Republican candidate, or presidential nominee offered has very different views from theirs on some of their most important issues. Sometimes, the candidate presents a gap so wide that they can't cross it. Such a situation is most likely created by a RINO, or 'moderate' Republican.
With McCain, it might have been amnesty, cap and trade, drilling in ANWR and offshore (he never agreed to anything unless the state involved agreed), campaign reform, pandering to interest groups, and his history of backstabbing his own party. Many republicans had several reasons to dislike McCain, and that kept a fair number at home.
Many took the view that it was better to have Obama than McCain, that Obama would be so extreme that voters would turn on him and the Dems, then we'd start to come back and there would be less damage in the long run than with McCain and a Dem. Congress. We are now in the months that will determine that.
But some conservative Republicans will stay home when the Republican candidate is too far from their issues. Everyone doesn't do lesser of two evils. Doesn't matter who likes that or doesn't like it. That's reality.
Yes? I sincerely doubt that. You think McCain would have bowed to our enemies and tyrants weakening us in the world? Do you honestly think McCain would have ignored the Republican stimulus plan option and shoved the Porkulus bill through? Do you honestly believe the House would have even presented the Cap and Tax bill for passage? You honestly believe the country would be facing this tyrannical health care plan?
I think you are delusional.
Anyone who stayed home or voted for Obama to “teach a lesson to GOP” are fully responsible for the current destruction of the USA.... no one who actually follows McCain believes he would have pushed abortion — for instance — on people and even go so far as be in favor of infanticide and I danged well know he would not be pushing this health care plan... or favoring a dictator in Honduras over their constitution — or apologizing to India, China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc., for being an American.....
Still, glad for bringing up the concept "Moderate Republican" and trying to equate it with "RINO".
That's absolutely silly. First of all, in an electorate with single member districts for electing representatives, everything focuses on no more than two poles of representation, and sometimes only one. That's the Bimodal Saddle. If you're not at one pole or the other you are IN THE FRINGE.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a "moderate" of any stripe. They are what they are ~ and currently they are Republicans, Democrats or fringe voters.
As far as candidates go (totally different subject) there are single member districts where ONLY ONE PARTY has achieved popular recognition. New York City is a good example.
So how does anyone but a Democrat win office there? Well, they don't, but there are Democrats who run as Republicans. They are called REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY. Here you find Bloomburg, Giuliani, Lindsay, etc.
Understanding that the principle of winning office is to secure your base and draw votes from the other pole, you will find that RINOs can pull off the trick without compromising their own otherwise pretty doggone Democrat principles.
That's neither good nor bad really. Without these guys the Democrats would be able to set their corrupt placeholders in office at will.
The problems arise when the RINOs are given standing in Republican party machinery. They should be kept out of the national machinery, and out of the state party machinery in a number of places also (where, for instance, a big dominant city, e.g. Chicago, is Democrat, but the rest of the state is Republican ~ you wouldn't want a RINO running Illinois corn country).
We could go on and on forever, but definitions are important, and always remember THERE CAN BE NO MODERATES. You are, or you aren't, and you get voted up or down on that basis.
Amen! And while I respect the right of every American to vote his/her conscience, I do not respect those who refuse to vote at all. Your voice isn't counted in a non-vote. People died to protect your right to be heard, not to sit silently on the sidelines and protest like a child.
So, McCain was a crappy candidate. We knew that, but then so was Romney and Huckabee. I mean, we seriously had no one. At least with McCain we got someone with experience, someone who we KNOW is a patriot, a war hero, a man who loves this country.
In other words, the total opposite of who sits on the throne today. So, yeah. Thanks a lot you sideliners.
And who of all the Republican possibilities could possibly have been elected last year? And don’t say Hunter because his loss would have been humiliating - I might agree with his principles but his presentation is a cure for insomnia. Sarah might have taken us over the top if she hadn’t looked like she flubbed the Couric interview and the media ...well, you know.
I was for Fred but now I’m not so sure Fred was for Fred.
If they survive Obamacare, I bet they vote en masse in 2012, and not for the Obamafuehrer.
I agree with you there 100%. I'm also not one who thinks the party should try to get rid of all RINOs. We're better off with whatever stripe of Republican that can be elected in the Northeast and other liberal areas. And my problem with McCain runs far deeper than his RINO tendencies. He's no longer an asset to the national party and national election efforts.
And, it is a real problem if a RINO becomes the presidential candidate. Some think they can always take the conservative Republican's vote for granted, but that's been proven wrong more than once. It's the conservative, red states that consistently go Republican, and if the national party thinks they can ignore the important issues of voters in those states, then they'll continue to weaken the party.
The new America Odinga style.
Nothing that some lead poisoning couldn’t cure.
Just keep treating conservatives like the democrats treat the black people of this country and see how long you republicans stay out of power. I don’t do rope-a-dope.
BTW, Giuliani could probably pull New York City voters, but could he win the state of New York? Odds are good that enough of the Conservative base would drop out that he'd lose the state. Plus, there's no way he'd be attractive to Democrats in New Jersey or Massachusetts.
Most Republican RINOs or so-called "moderates" are simply not attractive to most of the Conservative base, and cannot draw enough of the Democrat rank and file to make it worth running them for office.
Sarah Palin won in Alaska by drawing Democrat rank and file voters to her ticket. In contrast the most recent Senatorial campaign in Alaska saw the Democrat canidate using his Department of Justice contacts in Washington concocting a bizarre show-trial against his opponent, Senator Stevens.
After the election it was reported the DOJ had lied, misrepresented the law, and Stevens was actually innocent.
That sort of corrupt practice has to be accounted for in the calculus you use to set up a national win. Self proclaimed "Moderates" are incapable of doing that.
Romney could have been elected. No matter what the Romney haters here at FR say, polls were posted after Florida showing Romney received more votes from self-identified conservatives than McCain, and Romney did well among conservatives in general.
Huckabee was the spoiler, and hurt Romney by siphoning off votes that would have gone to Romney otherwise. Romney campaigned conservative, and was considered conservative by most Republicans.
I wanted Romney or Fred, but Romney would have been a great candidate, and would not have blown it during the financial crisis like McCain did.
Unfortunately, some of the same candidates can result in similar vote splitting in 2012, and might give us another RINO candidate that will turn off the base as McCain did.
Pawlenty in 2012?
The only non-Democrat I could see winning NYC in a Presidential election would be Bloomberg, sad to say.
I agree!!!
Criswell Predicts: A Huckabee spoiler!
I'm afraid that's all too possible, and I doubt the Huck will be bothered one bit if he is a spoiler again (and won't admit it, again). The party better settle on someone early, Sarah or Mitt, or we might end up with Pawlenty.
Blue states can pick our candidate again if we aren't careful, then those states won't go for their pick in the general election.
So, if Republicans don't listen to you, it gives you an excuse to help Democrats remain in power?
Apparently, you love your own beliefs more than you love your country.
That's sad, and one reason we are in the shape we currently are... too many "conservatives" are just like you.
The scenario: A Huckabee candidacy would take votes away from Palin in the South, providing for a Romney victory. Huckabee gets HHS in exchange.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.