Without evidence, this author is taking a leap making that assumption. I'm inclined to believe that more people voting would have still resulted in the same outcome.
Brat had a winning message and he delivered it tirelessly to whomever would listen. He couldn't even get the national Tea Party to return his phone calls.
Cantor lost because he is an arrogant prick that has the mindset that he was entitled to that job. He quickly forgot that he was voted to represent the people of a state.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that if you managed to drag another 20,000 voters out who cared so little that they didn’t vote, they probably would have voted for Cantor, because you tend to vote for a name you recognize, and for the person who already knows how to do the job.
The point of making voting at least slightly difficult is to ensure that we get votes out of people who actually CARE about things enough to think twice. That is why I am very opposed to making voting easier.
If the same number of voters had voted the other way, would she have written a column about Cantor's reelection? I suspect not...and we will never know.
Without evidence, this author is taking a leap making that assumption. I'm inclined to believe that more people voting would have still resulted in the same outcome.
Isn't that how pollsters do polling -- they call on a small portion of likely voters to represent the likely outcome? Doesn't Susan think polls are valid unless they are avorable to her preferences?