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 ...
At least we've proved we're better than the RATs at handling defeat; unlike the dems, we didn't throw a temper tantrum and cry "VOTER INTIMIDATION!"
If things had been the other way around, we'd have to listen to the dems once again grasp at straws, trying to find ways to make a Republican victory void.
I stand corrected.
--They succeeded in getting rid of a couple of RINOS .. --
And a few true conservatives.
You notice no Republicans are saying the elections were stolen? We are taking responsibility for this loss.
Do you think the same would be true if we had kept control of one or both houses?
I think the loss should be blamed on the Leader of the Party. Now tell me who is that? In the question lies the answer.
I'm proud to say I did my part. I have no patience with "teaching a lesson" in a general election and if these people who were so upset had bothered to show and vote in the primaries maybe they would have had a candidate they would be proud to vote for.
I wasn't questioning your memory but only curious as to where you had seen the info. Thanks.
Then both you and they are morons who haven't a clue as to what the Taliban were like. The Taliban would have shot you through the head in a public stadium for opposing them.
Based on what? Your guts? The amount your guy lost by?
"What are the facts? Again and again and again --- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell", avoid opinion, Care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" --- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always in to an unknown future; facts are your only chance. Get the facts! " --RA Heinlein
At this point, yes.
It is just my gut instinct that 5 percent of Republicans opted to stay home.
As soon as we (I) get some crunched numbers from Republican officials, I can get more accurate.
All I know is that many of the Republican candidates who won in 2002 by several percentage points, lost this time by several percentage points.
One article I read recently pointed out about 10 losing Republican candidates who, after having won squeakers in recent elections, each lost by less than 3,000 votes.
And yes, I just got off the phone with our local Christian Coalition president, and she also estimated that between 5 and 10 percent of her "flock" said they didn't even bother to vote.
The theory that squeakers like you describe being caused by "stay at home" voters just doesn't wash with me. It is assuming that people who normally are "sure to vote" suddenly didn't, in large numbers. I don't buy it."Stay at home" voters NORMALLY stay at home, and only come out when really motivated.
Far more likely theories: 1) swing voters in the last squeaker weren't satisfied, and enough swung the other way. 2) Dems out-motivated their side of "occasional voters" this cycle. 3) Reps drew out unusually large numbers of "occasional voters" last time that weren't excited enough by the mid-terms. 4) Good, old-fashioned voter fraud is always a suspect in squeakers. 5) Re-districting or demographics changed in the district. 6)An especially targeted Dem campaign yielded results.
If you take CA, for example, incumbents won every House seat but one: Pombo, who was targeted by the Envirals. Open seats were retained by the previous party.
First, I have to question their methodology for determining turnout. They use “eligible” voters to determined their percentages and go into an explanation of why. Then they explain why they don’t use “registered” voters. I fail to understand how someone is eligible to vote if they aren't registered and why that would be a better measurement, but, that’s probably just a matter of definition.
Second , they say that the TOTAL raw number votes for dims and pubbies was the same in 2006 as in 2002.
Dims had 31.7 mil, pubs had 29.9 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2006
Dims had 32.8 mil, pubs had 28.8 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2002.
It says nothing about WHO voted for WHO to comprise those numbers. You may have gut feelings about how the registered dims and registered pubs voted but you can’t tell it from this study.
So the bottom line to their study is “more people voted for dims than pubs and the pubs lost”. With all due respect, I think we’re capable of figuring that one out.
Now, although I am unable to reach any conclusions from the numbers in this study other than the pubs lost because they got less votes, this bunch easily determines that “the 2006 election was a total repudiation of the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney version of conservatism.” That may or may not be true but I’d really like to know how they reached that conclusion.
Third, although I recoil at the thought of using their percentages, one interests me from pg 11 of their study:< BR> In 2006, Pub registration was 31.0, dim was 36.8 and other was 16.7.
In 2002, Pub registration was 30.2, dim was 37.2 and other was 14.4.
They go on to explain why those numbers don’t add up to 100% but that’s not what interests me. What’s interesting is that the Pub & Dim percentages are virtually a wash BUT the “other” was a full 2.3 increase in 2006 over 2002.
This is what Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group attributes as one of the major factors in the Pub losses....other voters, i.e. I’s, L’s, young people, etc..
Now, maybe I’ve missed the whole point of this study. Maybe it’s right there in front of me and I’m just not seeing it...but...if anyone does, please let me know.
I have no dog in this hunt, no pet theory that I’m protecting, just a desire to get the facts straight and prepare for the Beast in 2008.
Second , they say that the TOTAL raw number votes for dims and pubbies was the same in 2006 as in 2002.
Dims had 31.7 mil, pubs had 29.9 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2006
2002 results SHOULD READ:
Dims had 28.8 mil, pubs had 32.8 mil for a total of 61.6 mil in 2002.
Wow...
Dammit. I thought I was going to be able to contribute something useful to your analysis. I am just going to assume that like anything else involving politics and numbers, the facts of this election won't be discernible until all impact of those facts is irrelevant. As you've already stated, I think all we know for sure at this point is that more voters voted for democrats than Republicans. That might be all we need to know.
Right...
As if President Bush doesn't already have a proven track record of trying to appoint complete imbeciles for SCOTUS...
It took some extreme arm-twisting and outright threats to finally 'motivate' President Bush into appointing a qualified, conservative candidate.
If anything, the Democrat Congress will actually like his first choices...
Amen Brother Rokke.
I think I'll go back to lurking now for a while. Burned out too many brain cells on this one :)
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.