Posted on 11/10/2006 9:51:00 AM PST by SmithL
California's Republican voters stayed home in droves on election day, as preliminary figures show voter turnout falling well below the state average in some of the most reliably GOP parts of the state.
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.''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I can't even explain that one away.
Thanks a lot, guys! I hope you're happy with the socialists in charge and now likely to win in 2008 as well.
I'm so sorry Tom didn't win :-(
The spark of hope is that Lincoln was defeated repeatedly at first, also... hope Tom doesn't give up!
Arnolides?
No surprise to some of us. I voted for him but I also recognize that McClintock has a charisma problem. This is politics not brain surgery, he needs to find somebody else to carry his message.
the polls, as a whole, were RIGHT ON THE MARK.
They were incredibly accurate in many instances--the VA race being a good example--as the RCP poll aggregation showed Webb with a tiny lead on Allen--exactly the outcome that occurred.
The vast majority of the polls told us exactly what we would see on election day--and only a small percentage ended up being outside the margin of error. Regardless of the biases (real and perceived), most polls were CORRECT.
I think every one should remember that next time--when everyone starts trashing polls because they don't like what they say.
I know I should have voted more then three times
"You would think the possiblity of getting nuked by terrorists would motivate people."
In my area, I didn't see ONE ad about national security or the economy. Republicans failed to nationalize this election -- which was the key to our '94 victory. I watched Jim Talent's ads and they were all about nursing homes and stem cells. I kept thinking, "WHO CARES!!!!?????" Tell us how this election is important to our security and our economy. What were the Republicans thinking this year?
They rarely go for the jugular. To chicken what the MSM will say. That is an issue that must be addressed.
Yes. Some have suggested that was it. OUR amendment had a little-known component that basically now will require an employer to open his books to anyone who demands it, so that any worker can find out what any other employee makes.
Each of these set up one-sided attacks against Republicans, without any counterbalance against Dems. There is no way you can put a good spin on Foley; but you could have demanded that other pedophiles on the Dem side get the boot so that in the minds of the public the "corruption" was the same.
It isn't even a matter of going for the juglar. It is about articulating their strengths. They were "chicken" in the sense that they were even afraid of bringing up national security, for fear of it being too close to unpopular Iraq positions. It was their job to articulate why the war is important -- not run from it.
Minimum wage: Too bad about all those marginally skilled workers, youth, and minorities who will lose their jobs, or fail to get work as employers decide not to expand. The market moved beyond min. wage years ago for productive labor.
I saw a McClintock ad once.
Oil companies KNOW that they are the dim target numero uno!
LLS
I was surprised by this too. In MI, polls have been famously OFF for gubinatorial campaigns. Yet this time they showed a 10+ pt spread for Granholm, pretty accurate prediction. Have the pollers actually improved methodologies, or is this a case of the "stopped clock right twice a day" syndrome?
Even pundits who always make wrong predictions (Bill Kristol, Dick Morris) got it right this time.
Is there a list somewhere that tells the % of turnout for each state and compares it to other years?
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.