Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems Turnout Higher Than GOP For First Time Since 1990
American University ^ | Nov. 9, 2006 | American University

Posted on 11/11/2006 12:00:19 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at spa.american.edu ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: elections; turnout
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last
To: FairOpinion
But Republicans and conservatives who didn't bother voting are directly responsible for the current Dem Congress.

Yep.

151 posted on 11/11/2006 12:57:38 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
The first order of responsibility lies with the Republican congress and the President who squandered the opportunity to lead, and not act like democrats lite. The voters did their duty to put them in office for that purpose in the first place. So while I think it was a serious mistake for the voters to do what they did, they are not the primary cause.

We lost about 25 conservative seats in the House. The conservatives who stayed home in those districts are to blame.

It can't get much simpler than that.

152 posted on 11/11/2006 1:01:35 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx
They blew our chance for a CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY SCOTUS.

Gone with the wind.

153 posted on 11/11/2006 1:03:08 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign


Yep, and now 43 will be blamed for appointing a moderate.


154 posted on 11/11/2006 1:22:46 PM PST by onyx (I'm now a minority and victim of the democrats, but with full and free entitlements!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The excuse some Republicans used that their current GOP reps weren't one hundred percent perfect was an idiotic one. In an election, the voter ALWAYS!!! chooses the best candidate available. It will be rare that any candidate is one hundred percent perfect. Thanks to millions of pouty Republican non-voters, we will see a raft of socialist, defeatest legislation emanating from Washington for the next two years. Hey, pouty, simon-pure, non-voting Republicans, thanks for Pelosi, Rangel, and the rest of the lib idiots.


155 posted on 11/11/2006 1:50:15 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

I did not sit back. I voted straight Republican even if I did like him/her or not. If Democrats win; all our hard work will go down the drain.

We lost because we did not have the ethusiam like in 2004. Either we were too over confident or got mad at the GOP for not solving everything in two years. The Democrats beat us because they had candidates act like Reagan Democrats.



The Republicans in the House and Senate also acted like RINOS. They spent money like drunken sailors with Homeland Security. Many Conservatives were alientated by using our government as a cash cow. Bush spent way too much in New Orleans but the city is also a major port.

We didn't do anything with Social Security and the border situation...and many conservatives were so upset over that. They didn't get they're way on these issues and so they stayed home to teach Republicans a lesson.

Cut your nose inspite of your face type deal.

I guess when Bush changes bankruptcy laws...that's not good enough for conservatives.
http://www.newstarget.com/010162.html

I also the passage of Healthy Forest Restoration Act in 2003 does not mean much for the Republicans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031203-4.html

Even though the house was controlled by the Republicans back then the Democrats still have enough power to stop any conservative ideas from coming into law.


Can you name any other accomplishments the Bush Administration made?

The Iraq conflict is not going well. With the increase of violence in Iraq recently the American public got dishearten and want a easy fix by turning to the Democrats.

I believe the American public are not serious about winning against Islamic crazies and they prefer to postpone this problem for my grandchildren to deal with. For those Republicans who had a tantrum last tuesday and didn't vote...shame on you.

I know the Democrats will cut and run from Iraq. The Kurds who worked so hard to have their independence will be flushed down the toilet once again by the United States.

On a good note, the ball is in the Democrat court. They have two years to prove they're more clever and smarter to figure out Iraq situation without cutting and running. They also need a plan to tackle terrorism without resorting to a law enforcement problem only...ie USS Cole.

Those Reagan Democrats better display their intentions for the next two years or they will be voted out of office for being deceitful.

I don't trust the Democrats and they will high tail it to Pelosi's agenda.

All we need to have angry voters again.
:)


156 posted on 11/11/2006 2:05:56 PM PST by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Still, there is the correct issue about lower turn out among registered Republicans.
There is also the issue of supposedly conservative leaning third party types who everytime find a way to enable the terrorist loving communist Democrats.


157 posted on 11/11/2006 2:06:14 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Milligan

Alito and Roberts... The SS reform was stopped by the Democrats, NOT because the Republicans didn't try.


158 posted on 11/11/2006 3:23:04 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

Third parties can help ya or defeat ya.
I'm sure Republicans enjoyed having Ralph Nader as a third party candidate to beat Kerry.

Third Party Perot helped Clinton in 1992?


159 posted on 11/11/2006 4:02:53 PM PST by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
And Hillie still got 600,000 fewer votes this time around. Go figure.
160 posted on 11/11/2006 4:07:16 PM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
haven't we had enough days of whining here already?

No, we need real manly whining, 24/7/365 for the next two years. That alone can fix our problems.

Win or lose, some people just like to be grinches.

The relatively small segment of conservatives who didn't vote or voted for Dims is small and probably couldn't have swung the results more than 5-10 seats. Where we need to worry more is the loss of independents voters which FR doesn't have many of. We need a conservative agenda to reclaim our disaffected conservatives and appeal to indies who saw, correctly, that Bush and the GOP spent like LBJ on crack and had some messy scandals and not much positive news on the ground in Iraq. Progress amounts to they have a constitution and a government but a couple more American soldiers and a bunch of Iraqis are dead every day with no end in sight.

I suppose it's more fun to troll around, trying to find and punish that handful of conservatives here at FR, than to discuss what we did wrong and what we can fix to win in '08.
161 posted on 11/11/2006 5:01:33 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
article: The largest Democratic increase in turnout as compared to 2002 was recorded in Nebraska (up 10.7 percentage points)

Scary.
162 posted on 11/11/2006 5:04:18 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Vlad
article: The largest Democratic increase in turnout as compared to 2002 was recorded in Nebraska (up 10.7 percentage points)

Scary.
163 posted on 11/11/2006 5:04:40 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

At least we've proved we're better than the RATs at handling defeat; unlike the dems, we didn't throw a temper tantrum and cry "VOTER INTIMIDATION!"

If things had been the other way around, we'd have to listen to the dems once again grasp at straws, trying to find ways to make a Republican victory void.


164 posted on 11/11/2006 5:40:25 PM PST by RWB Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
Well, deport, I am getting it from my feeble memory of something I read here on FR. And since you bothered to look up the statistics, I guess I mis-remembered.

I stand corrected.

165 posted on 11/11/2006 6:00:55 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Made in USA

--They succeeded in getting rid of a couple of RINOS .. --

And a few true conservatives.


166 posted on 11/11/2006 6:03:49 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

You notice no Republicans are saying the elections were stolen? We are taking responsibility for this loss.

Do you think the same would be true if we had kept control of one or both houses?


167 posted on 11/11/2006 6:08:52 PM PST by Silly (still being silly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I think the loss should be blamed on the Leader of the Party. Now tell me who is that? In the question lies the answer.


168 posted on 11/11/2006 6:14:36 PM PST by VRWC For Truth (C'est la vie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I'm proud to say I did my part. I have no patience with "teaching a lesson" in a general election and if these people who were so upset had bothered to show and vote in the primaries maybe they would have had a candidate they would be proud to vote for.


169 posted on 11/11/2006 6:18:07 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

I wasn't questioning your memory but only curious as to where you had seen the info. Thanks.


170 posted on 11/11/2006 6:25:31 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
They think they are nuts, and the US version of the taliban. I agree.

Then both you and they are morons who haven't a clue as to what the Taliban were like. The Taliban would have shot you through the head in a public stadium for opposing them.

171 posted on 11/11/2006 6:29:14 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire
It wasn't a big percentage of Republicans who were so demoralized they didn't vote. I estimate it was about 5-percent.

Based on what? Your guts? The amount your guy lost by?

"What are the facts? Again and again and again --- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell", avoid opinion, Care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" --- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always in to an unknown future; facts are your only chance. Get the facts! " --RA Heinlein

172 posted on 11/11/2006 6:50:43 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Based on what? Your guts? The amount your guy lost by?

At this point, yes.

It is just my gut instinct that 5 percent of Republicans opted to stay home.

As soon as we (I) get some crunched numbers from Republican officials, I can get more accurate.

All I know is that many of the Republican candidates who won in 2002 by several percentage points, lost this time by several percentage points.

One article I read recently pointed out about 10 losing Republican candidates who, after having won squeakers in recent elections, each lost by less than 3,000 votes.

And yes, I just got off the phone with our local Christian Coalition president, and she also estimated that between 5 and 10 percent of her "flock" said they didn't even bother to vote.

173 posted on 11/11/2006 7:11:32 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire
All I know is that many of the Republican candidates who won in 2002 by several percentage points, lost this time by several percentage points. One article I read recently pointed out about 10 losing Republican candidates who, after having won squeakers in recent elections, each lost by less than 3,000 votes.

The theory that squeakers like you describe being caused by "stay at home" voters just doesn't wash with me. It is assuming that people who normally are "sure to vote" suddenly didn't, in large numbers. I don't buy it."Stay at home" voters NORMALLY stay at home, and only come out when really motivated.

Far more likely theories: 1) swing voters in the last squeaker weren't satisfied, and enough swung the other way. 2) Dems out-motivated their side of "occasional voters" this cycle. 3) Reps drew out unusually large numbers of "occasional voters" last time that weren't excited enough by the mid-terms. 4) Good, old-fashioned voter fraud is always a suspect in squeakers. 5) Re-districting or demographics changed in the district. 6)An especially targeted Dem campaign yielded results.

If you take CA, for example, incumbents won every House seat but one: Pombo, who was targeted by the Envirals. Open seats were retained by the previous party.

174 posted on 11/11/2006 7:38:38 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Rokke; All
Has anyone actually tried to analyze these numbers in this study? I have and all I get is a big zero.

First, I have to question their methodology for determining turnout. They use “eligible” voters to determined their percentages and go into an explanation of why. Then they explain why they don’t use “registered” voters. I fail to understand how someone is eligible to vote if they aren't registered and why that would be a better measurement, but, that’s probably just a matter of definition.

Second , they say that the TOTAL raw number votes for dims and pubbies was the same in 2006 as in 2002.
Dims had 31.7 mil, pubs had 29.9 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2006
Dims had 32.8 mil, pubs had 28.8 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2002.
It says nothing about WHO voted for WHO to comprise those numbers. You may have gut feelings about how the registered dims and registered pubs voted but you can’t tell it from this study.

So the bottom line to their study is “more people voted for dims than pubs and the pubs lost”. With all due respect, I think we’re capable of figuring that one out.

Now, although I am unable to reach any conclusions from the numbers in this study other than the pubs lost because they got less votes, this bunch easily determines that “the 2006 election was a total repudiation of the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney version of conservatism.” That may or may not be true but I’d really like to know how they reached that conclusion.

Third, although I recoil at the thought of using their percentages, one interests me from pg 11 of their study:< BR> In 2006, Pub registration was 31.0, dim was 36.8 and other was 16.7.
In 2002, Pub registration was 30.2, dim was 37.2 and other was 14.4.
They go on to explain why those numbers don’t add up to 100% but that’s not what interests me. What’s interesting is that the Pub & Dim percentages are virtually a wash BUT the “other” was a full 2.3 increase in 2006 over 2002.
This is what Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group attributes as one of the major factors in the Pub losses....other voters, i.e. I’s, L’s, young people, etc..

Now, maybe I’ve missed the whole point of this study. Maybe it’s right there in front of me and I’m just not seeing it...but...if anyone does, please let me know.

I have no dog in this hunt, no pet theory that I’m protecting, just a desire to get the facts straight and prepare for the Beast in 2008.

175 posted on 11/11/2006 8:20:45 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: evad; Rokke; All
Shiite...I knew I would type something incorrectly.

Second , they say that the TOTAL raw number votes for dims and pubbies was the same in 2006 as in 2002.
Dims had 31.7 mil, pubs had 29.9 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2006
2002 results SHOULD READ:
Dims had 28.8 mil, pubs had 32.8 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2002.

176 posted on 11/11/2006 8:26:31 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
So those that actually voted for a Democratic candidate are NOT responsible for the current Democratic Congress?

Wow...

177 posted on 11/11/2006 8:31:01 PM PST by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breathe some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
"With all due respect, I think we’re capable of figuring that one out."

Dammit. I thought I was going to be able to contribute something useful to your analysis. I am just going to assume that like anything else involving politics and numbers, the facts of this election won't be discernible until all impact of those facts is irrelevant. As you've already stated, I think all we know for sure at this point is that more voters voted for democrats than Republicans. That might be all we need to know.

178 posted on 11/11/2006 8:34:29 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Right...

As if President Bush doesn't already have a proven track record of trying to appoint complete imbeciles for SCOTUS...

It took some extreme arm-twisting and outright threats to finally 'motivate' President Bush into appointing a qualified, conservative candidate.

If anything, the Democrat Congress will actually like his first choices...


179 posted on 11/11/2006 8:35:33 PM PST by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breathe some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
I think all we know for sure at this point is that more voters voted for democrats than Republicans. That might be all we need to know.

Amen Brother Rokke.

I think I'll go back to lurking now for a while. Burned out too many brain cells on this one :)

180 posted on 11/11/2006 8:37:32 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: evad

Well, if you hadn't done it, someone else probably would have and come up with some bogus result that would have had us all chasing geese all over FR.


181 posted on 11/11/2006 8:41:55 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Timmy

Sounds like a little vote fraud went on there!


182 posted on 11/11/2006 8:42:13 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

The Dems did what one expected them to do: turn out their base.

The point is that we could easily have blocked them, since most newly won Dem seats were won by less than 2 %.

Some people are running around telling everyone how conservative they are and then they allow the Dems to take power. Those are the ones responsible, because they allowed the Dems to get that sliver of margin of victory. If conservatives had turned out, the Dems wouldn't have won. But they CHOSE to sit it out, vote third party of even vote for Dems.


183 posted on 11/11/2006 8:45:24 PM PST by FairOpinion (Don't give up! Start working on 2008 GOP win strategy NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
Yes, but, unfortunately, that's not unusual. That's why St. Louis and KC comes in so late, as they have to keep cycling folks in until they get to about 100% turnout. Those folks are amazing in their zealousness to do their civic duty.
184 posted on 11/11/2006 8:52:46 PM PST by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I'd like to see the numbers on who voted absentee. I'm sure the rats have got this system down. I think we need a force of people going door to door in some areas and helping republicans get their absentee ballots in!


185 posted on 11/11/2006 8:56:28 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
But Republicans and conservatives who didn't bother voting are directly responsible for the current Dem Congress.

We are now in the position that the Dems were six years ago. At that time the left wing extremists such as the the abortionists and the socialists were striving for ideological purity. They disenfranchised a portion of their voters by calling them "DINO's". These people then stayed home or became Republicans.

With their following diminished they then became the minority party.

After six years of losses they reached out to the conservative democrats while the "true" republicans were striving for ideological purity on the conservative side and driving off the people they considered "RINO's"

186 posted on 11/11/2006 8:59:00 PM PST by oldbrowser (The liberal media has effectively taken away our "Freedom of the Press".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

btt


187 posted on 11/11/2006 9:00:34 PM PST by Ciexyz (Satisfied owner of a 2007 Toyota Corolla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
I thought you said you heard an "R" say this.

Well, you know what I mean. McCain can sound like an "R" when he wants to, which isn't often.

188 posted on 11/11/2006 9:12:37 PM PST by Major Matt Mason (Moderates cannot be allowed to control the GOP - 11/7/06 is the proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Some people are running around telling everyone how conservative they are and then they allow the Dems to take power. Those are the ones responsible, because they allowed the Dems to get that sliver of margin of victory. If conservatives had turned out, the Dems wouldn't have won. But they CHOSE to sit it out, vote third party of even vote for Dems.

----

Then, considering the slim margins, it would behoove the Republican party to have candidates that can actually attract the Conservative vote instead of repel it.

Or is telling conservatives to 'shut up and take it' your preferred way of attracting support?


189 posted on 11/11/2006 9:14:33 PM PST by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breathe some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Some are demanding the impossible.

The choice is between a Republican and a Dem candidate. You choose the one that is closest to your views, not the one that is a polar opposite of everything you believe in.

By staying home and pouting the so-called conservatives are directly responsible for electing the Dems and for all the damage they will do to the country, not to mention endangering our lives.


190 posted on 11/11/2006 9:22:57 PM PST by FairOpinion (Don't give up! Start working on 2008 GOP win strategy NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You choose the one that is closest to your views, not the one that is a polar opposite of everything you believe in.

-------

That's exactly right... and if the Democratic candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate, then the Democratic candidate gets the brainwashed DU vote... and the conservative vote.

Which is why Republicans cannot win unless they court the conservative vote, for they have no one else that would vote for them.

So, again, Republicans must nominate political candidates that are conservative... anything else guarantees failure.
191 posted on 11/11/2006 9:27:12 PM PST by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breathe some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Continuing to do what caused us to lose is NOT the winning strategy.

I fully agree with this. The question is one of what, exactly, should be done.

THere are those here who have increased, if anything, their shameless promotion of POTUS candidates who are even more liberal than those who lost to the 'Blue Dog Democrats".

Let's not get stuck on stupid there.

Morphing further left is not the key to winning.

What disappointed the voters was a sense of business as usual in DC, and the sense that they had been abandoned by the party.

Illegal immigration, spending, and the perception of lackluster leadership all contributed mightily.

COnfusion over whether "fair and balanced" is on our side (closer than CNN, but not there yet) contributes to image problems fed by the performance of the Republican Majority.

We need candidates with a track record of walking the walk, not just talking the talk on conservative issues.

We need mass media, not just the internet, e-mail, and word of mouth, that can reach the voter who is not involved enough to go looking for information.

Our candidates need to be media-savvy and not provide the opposition with the rope to hang them (Allen's macacca).

Our candidates need an record of accomplishments to stand on when they run, not just vote for me 'cause I'm not them, or the wearying vitriol of endless attack ads. It has to become a question of why we should vote for a candidate instead of just against the opposition. You want the base to show up, give them someone to vote for.

Lynchpin issues remain:

Border security.

The GWOT

The economy and taxes

gun control

abortion

English as the national language

an Energy policy (not just pork) aimed toward becoming more self-sufficient in the future, and one which embraces oil, nuclear, coal, and viable alternatives.

That just names a few, I am sure folks around here can come up with more.

We have a lot of work to do, so let's wrap up the post mortem, and get 'er done!

192 posted on 11/11/2006 9:31:33 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Yeah, sure, Nancy Pelosi is more conservative than Hastert, she deserve to be speaker. Great conservative reasoning (/sarcasm)


193 posted on 11/11/2006 9:32:18 PM PST by FairOpinion (Don't give up! Start working on 2008 GOP win strategy NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty
However, the same sea of anger that swept the Democrats in will sweep them out if they don't deliver.

Exactly right!

194 posted on 11/11/2006 9:40:28 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker
well with nancy and harry they will be begging for a bush agenda now, hmmmmm

Do you mean like reigning in spending, MediCare reform, immigration reform, and limiting the size of government?

195 posted on 11/11/2006 9:44:55 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Yup...

Too bad the Republican party allowed this to happen by ignoring the vocal cries of it's conservative base...

...by trying to act like the 'Democrat Lite' party.

It's really looking like the current Republican party wanted Pelosi in charge. If they didn't... well, they knew what to do, but didn't do it.

It's not so hard to understand, for heaven's sake! And aren't we supposed to have Karl Rove, the political supergenius, as well?

Instead, conservatives got the 'shut up and do what your told' spiel. Which, in foresight... and hindsight... didn't work.


196 posted on 11/11/2006 10:03:16 PM PST by gogogodzilla (I criticize everyone... and then breathe some radioactive fire and stomp on things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
And what's worse, they never learn, despite several brutal lessons -- as in the Perot voters gave us Bill Clinton and launched Hillary's presidential bid, they almost gave us Gore by voting for Buchanan and they just gave us a Dem Congress, which may kill us all.

And they, the cut-N-run "voters (???), could also clear the road for another clintooons into the White House for another sixteen (16) years???

197 posted on 11/11/2006 10:13:34 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
[ Dems Turnout Higher Than GOP For First Time Since 1990 ]

MUST be all those Legal and Illegal aliens VOTING..

198 posted on 11/11/2006 10:16:37 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperboles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
"The Taliban would have shot you through the head in a public stadium for opposing them."There are a bunch of religeous nutcases here who would do the same, if they could get away with it.

Folks who bomb abortion clinics. Some of them here freely damn you to hell for not believing what they do.

Frankly, if their book told them so, they would kill us. Mind numbed robots.

199 posted on 11/11/2006 10:19:22 PM PST by MonroeDNA (Libertarians are more conservative than pubbies. Strictest interpretation of the constitution,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

Thanks for those numbers for those places in CA. They do not show what the republican base did though. Those numbers only show the total results of the vote. They include all voters. that means the R vote shown includes independants-folks that are wishy washy and not part of the base. You can't say that when 20K people voted R in the past, and now only 15K voted R, that republicans failed to show. The real R turnout is buried in those numbers.


200 posted on 11/11/2006 10:32:04 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson