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.