Posted on 11/11/2006 12:00:19 AM PST by FairOpinion
That's right and some of those that would have flipped stayed home. There was some increase in rat voters in various places such as university towns. All this means is that the "independent" voter was effected, not the base. You can't call a anyone that votes R and D a base R. The flip floppers are sympathetic to rat agit prop.
"I'm not sure I believe their figures. I know I don't understand them."
The nummbers come from various Sec of State offices. I'm sure they are good numbers, as are the simple statistics based on them.
"You won't get it because they don't exist...and certainly not from this study."
The facts do exist as data over the years for all candidates for all offices in many years, but to the analysis is very complicated and time consuming. It's a full time project, that I estimate would take roughly up to 2 years for 50 states for 1 person from past experience in WI. Here I can see there was no change in the real R base turnout, or vote. The rats gained the I vote.
That is probably a correct assumption. At least it's the only assumption that is touted by other study groups, e.g. Tarrance. All the other assumptions and "facts" quoted by many on this thread are nothing more than "gut feelings".
The facts do exist as data over the years for all candidates for all offices in many years, but to the analysis is very complicated and time consuming.
The facts that exist are raw numbers like what party got how many votes. If there's something other than exit poll info to tell us if R's voted for R's or D's for D's or I's for whatever, I'm not aware of it. I'm sure people run their studies and make certain assumptions but as to hard and cold fact, I don't know how the could ascertain them.
I agree whole heartedly on the analysis being time consuming and complicated....I tried it. All I got was a big headache. Too much apples and oranges.
Anyway, I still say, the answer for us is to begin preparation for the 2008 Beast..and the sooner the better.
CA ELECTION AFTERMATH: Republican voters didn't show up at the polls
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1736379/posts
Although the final totals won't be known for weeks, election day turnout in Fresno, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and SanDiego counties, which all have Republican pluralities, ran as much as 10 percentage points below the state's 44 percent average turnout.
"The turnout in Republican counties was low compared to the turnout in counties where Democrats hold the edge,'' said Patrick Dorinson, a spokesman for the state Republican Party. "The conservative Republican base didn't show up.''
Without that anticipated flood of votes from places such as Orange County and the Inland Empire, Tuesday was a long night for most of the statewide Republican candidates not named Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"It came as a surprise,'' admitted Stan Devereaux, a spokesman for Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock, who lost the lieutenant governor's race to Democratic Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi. "We kept looking at the returns through the night and thought we had a chance, but when the returns (from Republican counties) came in, we didn't get the turnout we expected.''
Speaking as one of the conservative independants you speak of,who backs many of your issues and has for YEARS ( one of which is pro life) I can't get behind this defeatist "we sure showed them by not voting" crap. All you really showed anyone is that you are ignorant and not dependable. If you are the "true conservative base" you certainly aren't very reliable and that makes me uncomforatble in backing things you propose (which is why I will not join the party). Nobody wants to waste their time and effort with people who will hang you out to dry or stab you in the back after you have supported their cause for years,just because things don't go 100% their way at all times. The fact that the "base" screwed over the house and senate majority ON PURPOSE really chaps my butt BIG TIME! Maybe I'll just start voting 3rd party and YOU SELF RIGHTOUS "VALUE VOTERS" can keep swinging in the wind.
Libertarians often vote ways that benefit liberal democrats, so I wasn't shocked, I called this before the election.
"Facts and figures prove that Republicans lost, because many didn't bother to turn out and vote."
Not everyone is a pragmatist and some don't want to hold their nose while voting.
Do you agree with "conservatives" like the author of this article?
CA: We don't need this kind of GOP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737373/posts
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/abox/article_1351026.php
But you have to go to the actual article, they didn't excerpt the relevant parts. The author is senior editor of the Orange County Register. He says he almost applauded, when he found out that Allen lost to Webb and the Dems took over the Senate. Then he goes and declares the Bush administration a disaster, and that we went into Iraq under false pretenses. Then goes on to say that Arnold's winning is actually worse, than if he had lost to Angelides, and Republicans losing is actually better, than if they win. Then he ends the article by advocating that conservatives should punish Republicans and cause them to lose. All in the name of conservatism.
THESE are the people who gave us the Dem Congress. They punished the Republicans all right, and the entire country.
"As for Steve Greenhut's idea of why we went to Iraq, I can only assume that his memory only goes back a couple of years. On top of that the poor guy has to write something for a liberal rag in order to get paid so why not jump on the bandwagon."
===
The Orange County Register is a conservative paper in a conservatives area in CA.
Greenhut is writing "from the conservative side". He goes on and on why conservatives should focus on making Republicans lose and he was ecstatic that the Dems took not only the House, but also the Senate. What kind of conservative is this?!
Garbage. The loss was due to a swith of votes.
Folks who bomb abortion clinics. Some of them here freely damn you to hell for not believing what they do.
Lets total up all of the abortion doctors killed by nutcases going AGAINST what their faith says. Now lets total up all of the viable, ready to be born babies killed by late term abortionists BECAUSE of what their "beliefs" tell them is ethical and moral. Which group do you think holds more political sway? Which group gets billions of $ a year for killing and government protection?
As far as inflicting beliefs on others and causing their death, ask those getting abortions if they would like their heads crushed and their brains evacuated with a suction tube because some person they were dependant upon was "depressed". Ask the Michael Fox's of the world if they will volunteer to be killed and disected for medical experiments for some line of research that has proven useless so far.
And if you don't believe as they do, why should you care if they believe you are going to hell for murdering infants for your own benefit?
Frankly, if their book told them so, they would kill us. Mind numbed robots.
The evidence is vastly on the other side. It is the death worshippers, such as Kevorkian, Sanger and Singer, and the philosophies they espouse, that are far more likely to cause your death. Someday in the not distant future, "bioethisists" from the schools of thought these people pioneered will be deciding if your life is useful enough to continue, or if you have become a useless eater. When you find yourself in the hell the pro-lifers were warning you about, you may discover that it is one you made for yourself.
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.