GOP Turnout was only 40%, the RATs got 87%. The GOP will have a higher turnout in November - the RATs, not so much ...
But why was the GOP turnout so low and that of the democrat’s so high?
You’ve answered the question of why this special election was a nailbiter when it should have been a romp. But the above question (actually 2 questions) is a red flag.
Can anyone explain these questions of turnout?
And they haven't counted absentee or provisional. Dems nearly always do better in recounts because they just count until they are ahead.
Could you explain where you got this stat at and, further, what the heck it means? GOP turnout was 40%? Of all GOP registered voters? Same with the dems—87%? What does that mean. Is this year over year? 2016 vs 2018? Thanks. BTW, just because the white, progressive base of the Dem Party is fired up, which they clearly are, does not mean that the balance of the Dem voters are also fired up. I remember 1998 when Republican activists were bouncing off the walls itching to vote, only to find out that the rank and file Republican voter did not show up.
I suspect fraud was rampant...
I'd like to have all those votes verified by our Pub governor...right....
"Third, and this is troubling: Ohio Wan told me that they were speaking with callers into the district who were telling the OH GOP that many of the Republicans they called in Licking, Franklin, and Delaware were not aware there was a special election taking place [emphasis added]!”—LS, Notes On Ohio's Election & Note on AZ.
Corrections, insights welcome.
GOP has family and kids getting ready for school, a consuming endeavor, or taking last minute family vacations. Leftists, not so much since they tend to abort their progeny.
That statistic makes absolutely no sense. You're basing that on a comparison with the 2016 vote without any idea what the breakdown is. How do you know that 74.76% of those who voted for O'Conner were not independents who had voted for Tiberi in 2016? Or that 63.225% of those who voted for Balderson were not disgruntled Democrats and 47.03% of those who voted for O'Conner were not anti-Trumper Republicans?
"In case you missed it, here's his detailed, pre-election explanation of why a tight win in either direction would be a worrisome sign for the Republican Party. As I mentioned above, this is an R+7 district that Donald Trump carried easily. It's been in the R column for the last 36 years. The previous incumbent won with nearly 67 percent of the vote. Yet last night was nail-biter.(2) Democrats gained considerable ground. In spite of the GOP's not-quite-official win, last night's vote tally represents the latest data point in a long string of 2017 and 2018 elections in which Democrats' share of the vote total has increased by double digits over 2014 and 2016. As I alluded to in the bullet point above, the Republicans' margin of victory in OH-12 in 2016 was 37 points. On Tuesday, it was a hair under one point. That is not a happy trajectory for the party, as it points to strong Democratic candidate recruitment, robust Democratic enthusiasm, disillusionment among a segment of traditional Republican voters, and a hostile national climate. If this district had been even fractionally less red, it could now be in Democratic hands."
This is pathetic "I assume" garbage, without any kind of metrics to see who voted that didn't vote last time, who flipped, new voters, etc.
Anyone who flatly says "The previous incumbent won with nearly 67 percent of the vote." without the bullhorn that ALL INCUMBENTS WIN ON AVERAGE 67 PERCENT OF THE TIME AND WITH SIMILAR PERCENTAGES AND NEITHER OF THESE GUYS WAS THE INCUMBENT, is an absolute f***ing moron and should be disregarded entirely as a source of 'expertise' regarding anything other than naval-gazing.
To expand on what you said.
12th Dist in 2016 voting R-243,970, D-109,455, G- 12,848. To me it looks like the Dem’s max out their voters with 99,820 but the Repub did not with 101,574 that leaves Repub with 142,396 to play with and get out come Nov 2
87%! That’s unheard of. Those are approaching Stalinist numbers…