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 ...
"Amazing how many people on FR cannot see the forest for the trees."
""Amazing that there are people on FR who are unwilling to put blame where it belongs.""
Yes, there are some... but there is plenty of damn blame to go around. President Bush shares some, Rinos in the Senate have a huge slice of the pie, some members in the House share due to corruption and scandal, even some things which were no one's fault such as Katrina played a part, but all of this adds of to 50% of the problem... the other 50% were lying, scheming dims and their 5th column enemy operative laden Drive by Media. They cut deep into Conservative cracks, they lied and distorted evey facet of American life and world events, and they were heavily financed by one of the most evil demons in satan's army... soros!
LLS
Well, we know that the GOP is gonna face a hostile media. So why the heck did the GOP give the MSM the hammer to hit them with? That's just plain stupid.
You got it!
Worthy of shunning, dismissal of their opinions and thoughts on any subject.
Self important demoncrat stooges.
Can't stop the hammer... but you can certainly block it.
Look for FBI indictments of House and Senate members soon (good old Jack). There will be a couple of Republicans, but more than a few dims. Jefferson will be indicted also.
Things are soon to change in DC, but not in the way dan rather thinks.
LLS
It was a very poor turnout in precinct 347 of Austin, TX.
To all Republican who stayed home and didn't vote, you're going to get what you wanted. Bad government, higher taxes, weakened national defense and worst of all, Bush will have a hard time getting conservative judges on the bench now.
For ex., if 1 million Republicans in NY and CA stayed home, that would be much different in its impact than if 1 million stayed home in OH, IN, WY, VA, and so on, where we lost a dozen races by something like 20,000 votes.
Me too, and the early indications were, at least in OH, that they WERE voting in 2002-level numbers or higher.
1) Ohio did not have GOP increases. But we did at mid-day. That tells me that the motivated Republicans were up voting, early, and that was that. Apparently after 2:00, we were all voted out. So apparently a lot of Republicans stayed home, despite early indications (by 1:30, 33% of our voters had voted, putting the number at over 60%, or an increase, if it had been sustained).
2) There was a decrease of overall voter participation in MD. Interesting. Perhaps too early to prove it, but it does indicate that while blacks maybe did not cross the line and vote for Steele, they did not vote for the D.
3) What am I missing that NE had the highest proportional Dem increase? What was there that caused Nebraskans to vote in record numbers?
4) Fairly significant Dem decreases in the South. Anyone who thought this election showed the South "turning" to the Ds is wrong. However, the Ds do show significant new turnout in OH, WI, VA, NH. Three of these were red, and this suggests that suddenly they are bluer. Not good.
The Republicans didn't deserve to win, but neither did the Democrats.
I predict the ideological Dems in the party power structure will misread the vote and overreach as usual. They've got pent up demand from the moonbats to try to get as many of their pet projects through as possible. Two years of the Dems stinking up the place should bring the disaffected Pubbies back home, especially if the Dems nominate Hillary in '08.
Unless McCain's the nominee, in which case we will see historically low Republican turnout and the Dems will take it all.
A couple of disturbing signs: CO had low R turnout; AZ had low R turnout, where we lost Hayworth by a few thousand votes.
Potential good news? The votes are still there for a Republican party that appeals to them. Turnout is still king in most states. New York gets bluer, the South gets redder.
A preview of coming attractions...
Homeschoolers have a heavy load of responsibility these days. But there aren't enough of them yet.
Well said.
Millions of veterans have served and more are serving now to protect our freedom to vote, yet Americans can't be bothered. I think the voter turnout is higher in Iraq than in the United States.
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.