Dems Turnout Higher Than GOP For First Time Since 1990

American University ^ | Nov. 9, 2006 | American University

[FairOpinion]

The Democratic share of the eligible vote casting ballots for the House of Representatives increased from 16.8 percent in 2002 to 17.9 in 2006.

The Republican share declined sharply, from 19.2 percent in 2002 to 16.8 in 2006. This marks the first mid-term election since 1990 in which the Democrats garnered more votes that the GOP.

In the ballots so far counted in 2006 (and again excluding California, Oregon and Washington), citizens cast 31,703,311 votes for Democratic candidates for U.S. House, compared to 28,749,023 in 2002. The Republican candidates received 29,920,240 votes in 2006 compared with 32,771,580 in 2002.

[Gaffer]

While I think planning for 2008 is admirable, I don't think it's going to do any good. One of things I tried to get the "conservatives who were mad" to do was to think exactly what the Democrats are going to certainly do in the next two years.

With them effectively in control of the government (W won't veto), they will control the money, power, and election process for 2008. In other words even if our 2008 planning would be effective and could win, it won't win because our planning assumes fair elections, which 2008 and after will not be.

[beckysueb]

I'd say 35,000 illegal regristrations in one state alone by a nationwide lib organization helped them out, too.

[LS]

You are right. Sick.

[Miss Marple]

One surprise this time was the high number of younger voters who turned out. I think it was 10 million more than 2004. Most of those votes are liberal, because they are still in college or just out, or they are in lower-paying jobs where the class warfare spiel gets some traction. They are also easily manipulated by the media (especially Hollywood and music).

[pepperdog]

You'll never convince them they have any responsibility at all for what happens. The Perot voters are in total denial to this very day. Show them the numbers and they'll hide behind their oh so very righteous commitment to vote for the loser and against the not Republican enough sitting President. I fear they are either mentally challenged or they are the type who never takes responsibility for the consequences of thir actions, which means they'll never change. Yeah, I wouldn't care except for the fact that my taxes will go up along with theirs and my safety is compromised along with theirs.

[beckysueb]

And the promise of the wage an hour increase. These programs sound good to uninformed voters.

[CitizenJ]

Agreed. The freepers who have been gloating all week better not show up ranting against anything they see happening to this country in the next two years.

[raybbr]

One surprise this time was the high number of younger voters who turned out. I think it was 10 million more than 2004. Most of those votes are liberal, because they are still in college or just out, or they are in lower-paying jobs where the class warfare spiel gets some traction. They are also easily manipulated by the media (especially Hollywood and music).

How do you blame non-voters for that? (It's rhetorical - not aimed at you)

[Wuli]

The two most important, and most blatant errors in judgement, with the most long term and most disasterous consequences that the stay-at-home Conservatives GAVE TO THE COUNTRY will be that THEY, PERSOPNALLY will have given the country the Senate's traitorous "comprehensive" unenforceable, defacto-open-borders immigration bill, and Bush may have trouble getting another Alito through the Senate - leaving the liberals in a majority there, with an unknown 2008 POTUS ahead, when a few more liberal justices can be expected to resign due to age.

The consequences of both of those things will, in the long run, be far more serious and long lasting for the nation than simple over-spending, excesses in health care entitlements, unethical legislators, or WOT issues - non of which will receive any improvement from the Dims.

Thus, the erroenous idea that not voting was a "corrective" action is manifested in the fact that it will correct absolutely nothing and it will create great harm for the nation as well.

Stupid is stupid, no matter what the motivations are; there is never any victory in defeat. Something the Dims have always understood.

[Wuli]

The two most important, and most blatant errors in judgement, with the most long term and most disasterous consequences that the stay-at-home Conservatives GAVE TO THE COUNTRY will be that THEY, PERSOPNALLY will have given the country the Senate's traitorous "comprehensive" unenforceable, defacto-open-borders immigration bill, and Bush may have trouble getting another Alito through the Senate - leaving the liberals in a majority there, with an unknown 2008 POTUS ahead, when a few more liberal justices can be expected to resign due to age.

The consequences of both of those things will, in the long run, be far more serious and long lasting for the nation than simple over-spending, excesses in health care entitlements, unethical legislators, or WOT issues - non of which will receive any improvement from the Dims.

Thus, the erroenous idea that not voting was a "corrective" action is manifested in the fact that it will correct absolutely nothing and it will create great harm for the nation as well.

Stupid is stupid, no matter what the motivations are; there is never any victory in defeat. Something the Dims have always understood.

[beckett]

The Iraq mess dampened turnout among those who are supposed to be in the president's corner. No surprise really.

When you lead a nation into war making all kinds of optimistic claims about the outcome, and then it becomes evident that every strategic benefit that was supposed to result, from a stronger Israel on the verge of lasting peace, to a chastened Iran wary of the pincer of Afghani and Iraqi American military bases, turns out to be exactly the opposite, you can't expect those who put you in office to be full of praise about your leadership. Add to that the drunken sailor spending habits of this administration and the Republican congress, immigration leadfootedness, and the moral turpitude of Haggard and Foley, and you've got a dispirited base unwilling to check the box next to your name.

[Miss Marple]

No, I understand that didn't have anything to do with non-voters per se. However, it does account for why democrat turnout was higher than ours. (I also am of the opinion that a lot of people who are moderate voted for a democrat for various and sundry reasons).

[montag813]

Facts and figures prove that Republicans lost, because many didn't bother to turn out and vote.

Can you blame them?

When a "Republican" is pro-abortion and anti-gun, how can you convince Americans not to vote for a Democrat who, in many cases this year, was pro-life and pro-gun? RINOs kill turnout.

In addition, how can Republicans who want to defend the border, like J.D. Hayworth, possibly overcome the fact that the leader of the party--the President himself--wants open borders and amnesty?

[over3Owithabrain]

When you lead a nation into war making all kinds of optimistic claims about the outcome, and then it becomes evident that every strategic benefit that was supposed to result, from a stronger Israel on the verge of lasting peace, to a chastened Iran wary of the pincer of Afghani and Iraqi American military bases, turns out to be exactly the opposite, you can't expect those who put you in office to be full of praise about your leadership. Add to that the drunken sailor spending habits of this administration and the Republican congress, immigration leadfootedness, and the moral turpitude of Haggard and Foley, and you've got a dispirited base unwilling to check the box next to your name.

Points worth repeating. GOP turnout cannot be assumed based on hatred of the alternative. The Dems had a year-long, relentless, media driven strategy of smearing the GOP so badly that a sizable portion of their base would stay home in disgust and independents would vote them out.

This would likely have been overcome if the GOP had run a tight ship and led in a way that inspired an electorate, instead of turning one segment of their base off after another.

[McGavin999]

One surprise this time was the high number of younger voters who turned out

A lot of states had minimum wage propositions on the ballot.

[rahbert]

Whoa! A GOP majority precinct in Austin?

Who'd a thought that was possible?

[bert]

The Rats will whine the bargin was reneged by W.

No impeachment, no indictments.

They would do well to look at the photos of Saddam in the spider hole before crossing W.

They court political death if they proceed far beyond theatrical rhetoric.

[Rokke]

You are exactly correct.

[Rokke]

Voter info ping.

[pray4liberty]

You are right.

Two words I could add that voters intensely dislike: arrogance and corruption. It kept Al Gore and John Kerry from the Presidency and just swept out the Republican 'leadership' in Congress. That is the real message and I'm amazed that even some FReepers can't see that--but choose to blame the 'Perot voters.' Those voters got Bush in, both times.

However, the same sea of anger that swept the Democrats in will sweep them out if they don't deliver. This Congress is in for hell because this time the values voters will be watching their every move and hassling them every chance they get. I know I will be. I hope every one who posts on this forum will do the same.