Skip to comments.Dems Turnout Higher Than GOP For First Time Since 1990
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 ...
"haven't we had enough days of whining here already"
So stop it!
What some of us are doing is trying to get people to start working on a strategy to win in 2008. Continuing to do what caused us to lose is NOT the winning strategy.
I have seen a post, I should have bookmarked it, where someone was expounding that "true blue conservatives" were so upset with Republicans that they voted for the Dems and are happy that the Dems won.
I have seen you post stuff like this before, an allegation you somehow now can't back up but make it anyway,, Priceless! ..
now that is the old FO we're used to. whew.. almost had me thinking they replaced you on the account team.
Lugar is such a RINO the DEMs didn't even field a Candidate!
There are no facts and figures given here that support the conclusion. These data and statistics are lumped and include the swayed. the only way to get data on real R voters is roughly to compare straight R voter numbers for a john doe(R) against an incumbent D in prior mid term, or presidential year elections with this one.
The dems I talk to, especially women, say they can't stand the anti-evolution, pro-life, anti-stem cell, terri schiavo crowd.
They think they are nuts, and the US version of the taliban.
Democrats aren't particularly committed voters...which is why I always hope for rainy and/or cold weather each election season to reduce their turnout. This is especially applicable to urban voters...they absolutely can't be bothered walking someplace in rainy conditions. Republicans tend to be a bit more hardy when it comes to reaching the polling place.
~ Blue Jays ~
Hey, you're guy won,, all you are pushing is more socialists,, which in California in its current state is unfortunately doable as its all about demographics, ..
now you want to take it to the natioanl scene, where it just won't fly if some of us here have anything to say about it,. so stifle it yourself.. you are nothing more than a TWirP supporter.
the MSM and its perpetual liberal lie machine ground the base into the ground, suppressed votes and turn-out , and waalaaa , the dems won.. is that too tough to follow..
amazingly the GUb held his ground but he wasn't re-lected as a conservative much less a republican, his opponent was awful , all he had to be was not too bad.. imo, we all deserve better, not the twaddle you continue to push..
also, I don't think your proposal is so suited to win the day next go around, it is clear that your efforts have never been about supporting conservatism, only social democrats with an R by their name, the rush to socialism continues and you continue to support it, you're up to supporting it , all the while acting under the guise of being pure and holy,, ya got the holey part right. pure of motive? , I doubt it.
Read the document at the link. It's 85 pages with a lot of detail, providing lots of evidence for their summary statements.
Hmmm, First of all I don't know ANYONE that is Anti-Stem cell, second I'm not to sure how many people are giddy over as many abortions that we have in the US.
Wait a few days, probably more like a few weeks and fec.gov will have ALL the data
I don't think so.
Gee, thanks... here I just started to calm down from the earlier thread LOL
IMHO, any conservative who stayed home is as unpatriotic and rabid as Cindy Sheehan with far less excuse.
Agreed. I am disgusted with the lot of them.
They blew our chance for a CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY SCOTUS.
Yes, there are... here is just one example, posted on the PA state forum by a regular 3rd party cheerleader and still there...
Someone ---- anyone ----- want to argue about the power of a 3rd party in an election? Let's look at THIS result:
VA - U.S. Senate
100% Precincts Reporting
George Allen (i)
I am sure it will be fun watching this one get sorted out?.. 2,309,342 votes tallied ? and a difference of 2,726 votes?. a difference of 0.118%. This is a PERFECT example of where a 3rd party candidate makes all the difference in the world.
Republican turnout means real republicans turning out and that can only be determined as I pointed out in post 24. I just looked at the doc. All it shows is lumped turnout of people voting R and people voting D. Those numbers include a large percentage of people that are swayed at each election. The real republican turnout is buried in those numbers and can not be extracted from anything they've shown. It requires an extensive analysis which is way beyond the simple they did.
Just because 20K peole vote R, does not mean their are 20K republicans. The number is always much less that and it's buried in the lump sum with the "independent", or switch hit voter.
I voted but wont but I wont jump on those conservatives that didnt. I know a few that stayed home. Common feeling with them is they felt the Republican party stabbed them in the back on various issues.
If the party doesnt get back to it's roots it's gonna be the Beast in 08.
"Common feeling with them is they felt the Republican party stabbed them in the back on various issues. "
And the Dems will be much more conservative. (/sarc)
I bet they are petting themselves on the back how brilliant it was to put the Dems in charge to destroy the country, that'll fix the Republicans.
Arrggghhh, don't remind me.... that would have had a huge conservative impact on countless critical issues for possibly decades.
The next several years might be easier to take if I develop a taste for strong liquor ;-)
The 3rd party in your example means nothing. The 3rd party most likely took votes from the winner, but that still means nothing. All your example shows is that the close runner up failed to convince folks he was worth voting for. The turnout was propably around 35%. Had the candidate done a better job, he would have motivated the needed votes out of the 65% that didn't vote. The 3rd party is still insignificant.