"Dem Turnout Falls Off A Cliff"

[Clio the Leo]

Ugh.

Dem Turnout Falls Off A Cliff

By Reid Wilson
Turnout among Dem voters dropped precipitously in 3 statewide primaries on Tuesday, giving the party more evidence that their voters lack enthusiasm ahead of midterm elections.
In primaries in NC, IN and OH, Dems turned out at far lower rates than they have in previous comparable elections.

Just 663K OH voters cast ballots in the competitive primary between LG Lee Fisher (D) and Sec/State Jennifer Brunner (D). That number is lower than the 872K voters who turned out in '06, when neither Gov. Ted Strickland (D) nor Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) faced primary opponents.

Only 425K voters turned out to pick a nominee against Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). The 14.4% turnout was smaller than the 444K voters -- or 18% of all registered Dem voters -- who turned out in '04, when Gov. Mike Easley (D) faced only a gadfly candidate in his bid to be renominated for a second term.

And in IN, just 204K Hoosiers voted for Dem House candidates, far fewer than the 357K who turned out in '02 and the 304K who turned out in '06.

By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in Burr's uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in '04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from '06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in '06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.

Top Dem strategists have promised to spend millions to get their voters to cast ballots, and polls show they will need to succeed in order to avoid an electoral beating. The latest weekly Gallup tracking survey shows 43% of GOPers are "very enthusiastic" about voting, while just 33% of Dems feel the same way.

But some Dems say they don't worry about low turnout in primaries at the moment.

"We had historic increases in registration in 2008 and we are working to turn out those first time voters again this fall, and we'll do so united behind our nominees -- which can't be said of Republicans," DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. "The real story in looking at motivation of the base from yesterday was a deeply divided Republican party that nominated deeply flawed candidates that overwhelming majorities of their own voters couldn't support."

Sevugan pointed to ex-Sen. Dan Coats (R), who won just 39% of the IN primary vote, and to Rep. Dan Burton (R), who held off 2 strong challengers to win renomination with just 30% of the vote, as evidence that the GOP coalition is fractured.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/05/dem_turnout_fal.php

The solution? We must run Barack Obama for EVERYTHING. (Is there a rule that says he CANT be President AND in the House AND in the Senate AND head dog catcher in Columbus, OH at the same time?)

Funny nugget in @NewtGingrich poll: Obama's job approval in South Carolina is 49% approve, 50% disapprove. Not bad, for SC.

http://twitter.com/PoliticsNation/status/13429402826

[Kdillard]

1. I am just going to shake my head.

[Clio the Leo]

2. We dont need to shake our heads....

.... we need to get up off of our a**es. ;)

[Kdillard]

4. Very true but how can any Dem not realize how important voting is right now.

Seriously have they not seen New Jersey.

[Clio the Leo]

8. A LOT of folks thought their work was done on 11/4/08...

... and then expected the President to just take over from there. HE was the change they were waiting for.

[QC]

34. Have Dan Choi's circumstances improved since then?

He's still facing a discharge.

[Clio the Leo]

58. And if we all had the sense of urgency that Dan has.....

.... we'd be in a lot better shape.

We should all be chaining ourselves to the proverbial fence.

Great example. :fistbump:

[WI_DEM]

99. And anybody who hasn't seen the change since Obama came in is not paying attention

or is upset because he/she didn't get everything they wanted right away.

[tabbycat31]

25. great great example

and if you're in NJ the primary's in June and be sure to vote (in the 6th district we have a teabagger running in the Democratic congressional primary)

[GOTV]

108. How can elected Dems not realize how important it to PRODUCE right now ...

... I voted in OH so I'm not one of those who sat out but I easily understand the lack of enthusiasm to come out and vote for a party which is doesn't seem willing to even try to get us what we want.

[1955doubledie]

35. Well...

&w=570&zc=1

[depakid]

3. Why?

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

[denverbill]

5. Democrats obviously need to move more to the right. /sarcasm

Maybe a health care plan that forces people to buy insurance from private companies, or an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, or abandoning net neutrality, or protecting big banks from being broken up, or keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Doing right wing shit like that will encourage more Republicans to vote for Democrats, and that will solve the problem.

[SwampG8r]

39. ooooh .....snap!!!

[riverdale]

90. more offshore drilling too

[Hawkowl]

111. Well said.

Obama is well on his way to being a one term president. If one were to examine Obama's record with say Nixon's, Obama would be well to the RIGHT of Nixon!

Just 'cause you have a D after your name doesn't mean the democrats are going to bust their humps and vote for you.

[Jennicut]

6. Usually, when your party is in power, you are not as motivated.

It is the simple truth. We were more motivated in 2006, we were in the minority. Same with the Presidency in 2008, which helped the other Dem races throughout the country.

[depakid]

7. It helps when the party in power doesn't spend much of its time

going out of its way to insult and belittle its constituencies....

[joe black]

11. Or burn the young voters.

They won't be back thanks to the current back stabbing administration.

[Peacetrain]

13. Yeah right... they can stay on their parents insurance.. they got a break

on tax forms for tuition.. the grants for the sciences was spectacular.. so who is zooming who here?

[dionysus]

26. yeah they really got burned by that student loan reform and shit.

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

38. Yeah, staying on their parent's insurance plan until 26 is a real "back stabbing" move.

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

37. lol! Prove it.

:crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Is turnout in a primary indicative of anything?

I don't recall there being any major contested Democratic primaries here in Indiana. How that might be indicative of turnout in general I'm not exactly sure. The WAS a SIX-way GOP primary for IN Senate. :shrug:

[depakid]

10. It's indicative of enthusiasm

[Ganja Ninja]

12. Or it's indicative of the turmoil on the right.

The big turnout on the Republican side might just be related to the battle going on between the teabaggers and the traditional Republicans.

[depakid]

14. One has to balance out the other

Playing to the ephemeral middle doesn't do that.

One would have thought that lesson would have been learned many elections back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. That's what the SIX-WAY GOP Senate Primary was about

n/t

[Aramchek]

32. have another vegemite sandwich, mate

[depakid]

78. It's actually quite good on toast

which is what the Dems will be come this fall if things continue on the way they have been.

Guess a lot of you like this prospect:

2011 House Majority leader:

[QC]

85. I prefer Marmite. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. Maybe. Maybe not

There's not much enthusiasm to be found in voting in non-competitive primaries and I'm not aware of- at least here in Indiana- any competitive Democratic primaries this year, so I honestly did not expect much of a turnout nor do I believe that it is indicative of support for the party in general. The real bellwether will be the midterms in November IMHO.
The Indiana Democratic Senate Primary MIGHT have been more of a race to watch and would've probably ginned up some more enthusiasm among Democratic voters but Bayh quit too late for anybody to file to run in a primary race and AFAIK the likely Democratic nominee, Brad Ellsworth, will be named the candidate for Senate soon by the state Democratic committee.
As I have observed over the years, most primaries, frankly, are rather non-competitive unless the seat is occupied by somebody from the other party, if the seat is open, or if the incumbent is majorly unpopular or gets into some kind of trouble. Our very own Dan Burton, who normally runs unopposed in the primaries (nearly) every single time, got one (maybe two) challenger(s) this year but then again he's taken a few hits over the years and some people are waking up to the fact that he's growing complacent and corrupt. Unless people get sick enough of him, it seems like he'll own that seat until he dies and/or decides to retire. :banghead:

[emulatorloo]

54. No it is indicative of enthusiasm for voting in a primary that may be non-competitive

Article seems to want to compare general elections to primaries.

[phleshdef]

16. Yea, its indicative of a non-Presidential primary election.

[polichick]

15. That's what happens when Dem leaders sell out the base. nt

[ClarkUSA]

69. Funny how all the approval polls disprove this meme quite clearly, eh?

:eyes:

[polichick]

77. Looks like those approval polls didn't get 'em out to vote. nt

[ClarkUSA]

81. That isn't surprising, given historical precedent and the nature of the races mentioned in the OP.

"...there simply weren't a lot of competitive Democratic primaries (and low Democratic voter turnout as a result) in a handful of states."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=287654&mesg_id=287929

[Go2Peace]

84. Party affiliation continues to drop heavily. Wake up.

The party is not connecting well with it's faithful and it is showing. I was actually surprised to see it still dropping, but it is.

Both Democratic "leaning" and Democratic Party are both HEMORAGING. The beltway needs to stop insulating themselves in their rhetoric, like we see so often in GD Presidential on this site.

Take a close look, the Party has not been so weak in close to 6 years! Why are we hearing a different story?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The most disallusioned leave the party, keeping the approval rate amongst Democrats appearing to be higher than it is. If people were happy and feeling included the numbers would not be dropping so much. Time for the "beltway thinkers" to throw off the blinders and get to the work of dealing with reality. They need to push more populist change.

[polichick]

97. +1

[Jokerman]

17. My Indiana Democratic Ballot had no real contests.

Bayh timed the announcement that he was retiring so that we would have no one on the primary ballot. Now the party gets to hand pick our nominee for November. One last "fuck-you" to the voters from the sell-out Bayh.

Other than that we had token opposition to our congressional candidate and one marginally competitive township race. The local party does its best to stifle any real primary contests through their slating scam.

If there isn't really anything to decide in a primary, what is going to motivate the average person to vote?

[freddie mertz]

19. Agreed. Rule 1: Don't disappoint the activist base.

And the Youth vote is always weak on these special elections.

Add it up, and it gets dicey.

[harun]

18. Should have passed a Public Option.

[Jakes Progress]

42. But, but if we did that, the republicans wouldn't vote for us. nt

[Enthusiast]

91. Yes. Voters are justifiably

pissed off because the Democrats could have passed a public option but didn't even try.

[harun]

100. My Blue Dog Congressman will likely get voted out. He was for a PO

but the rest of his Blue Dog buddies hurt the cause.

[Lorien]

103. Yep. The party looks both weak and bought. nt

[blm]

20. Tim Kaine returned to Clinton's target state strategy, neglecting states Chairman Dean revived with

the 50 state strategy, like Ohio and NC that had been left to collapse by the end of the 90s.

[amborin]

21. that's what happens when you run on a Public Option & and then deny having done so

[progressoid]

22. Not surprised.

For a lot of people there isn't anyone to root for.

And sometimes getting kicked in the teeth by the people you work to elect can turn one off to the election process.

[grantcart]

23. It would be an interesting angle IF repeat IF

they were comparing races with competive primaries.

Voting falls off in a primary when there is no competition.

For example in the CA governor race the Republicans have a competitive primary but the Democrats do not.

Expect to see huge numbers of Republicans voting but very few Democrats.

Does this mean that the Republicans have increased their numbers in CA - no.

Also the more competitive the Republican primary the more likely that the primary is pulling the Republican Party to the far right and make them less viable in the general.

[harkadog]

29. There were competitive state primasries in all of those states

on our side not the Repugs.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. I can't speak for all of those states

but there weren't any significantly competitive Democratic primaries in my state (Indiana), at least AFAIK.

[KingFlorez]

24. Neither side is motivated

I think the poor Republican numbers show that they haven't mobilized like they say they have. Democrats need to remind people what is at stake, that's how we get our turnout numbers up.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkana]

30. +1

[struggle4progress]

33. It's not a load of crap. Elections are all about GOTV

[TheKentuckian]

28. You don't win sweeping victories and then track right to seek "the middle"

without hurting your own "base" turn out. When the gamble fails to attract anyone from "the middle" then you are stuck with no new votes and depress or alienate the ones you already had.

Mid-term's are base elections. If you are going to turn to capture "the middle" then you do it after securing your "base" and getting them out to help you over the hump, the so called middle means little until the Presidential year. The "middle" ain't going to GOTV or even get out to vote themselves.

Now the pukes have the motivation and we are stuck running on "the lesser of two evils", which is discouraging and has little chance of really whipping up folks to mob the polls.

[Enthusiast]

92. The one that decided on this

strategy is a Republican posing as a Democrat. Why would we do something against our interests? It makes no sense at all. When the voters replaced Republicans with Democrats in 2006 and 2008 they did not imagine they were voting for right wing candidates. This is bullshit. We are being duped.

[rudy23]

31. Well, when you shit on the exact people who turned out to elect Obama, that will happen.

I really don't think they want to keep majorities in Congress. Wouldn't life be much, much easier for them as the permanent minority party?

[ClarkUSA]

36. Bullshit. A very large majority of self-described liberals approve of Pres. Obama's job performance

The truth is that those of you who feel Obama "shit" on you represent a small fringe of Democratic voters.

[rudy23]

40. As evidenced by the continued momentum from the '08 campaign, right?

At least voter turnout hasn't been affected.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Apples and oranges much? n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

47. I guess environmentalists and global warming activists are a small fringe too. nt

[QC]

49. Don't forget teachers, peace and social justice advocates, and civil libertarians. n/t

[Teka]

51. That fringe is looking pretty much like the party

Minus the corporatists...

[polichick]

53. Exactly! :)

[ClarkUSA]

66. The fringe represents the small fraction of Democrats who disapprove of Pres. Obama.

Check any major poll and look for the approval numbers split up via party I.D. for the facts.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Yeah, sure. As if you speak for all of them.

:eyes:

[Go2Peace]

89. Unfortunately GD Presidential and beltway circlesdo not represent reality

Seriously, even with the President taking a slight turn to populism in recent months the Dems are still not connecting. I will be out working and voting. But we have got to get our heads out of the sand. We keep doing the same things over and over and in the long term we are losing the battle of ideas.

We are becoming the managers for the Republican world view. Take us instead of them, we pretty much believe in most of the concepts they do, we will just manage it a little better, reduce the racism, and throw those of you who work hard a few more cookies!

Where does that leave us? Eventually with only two choices. Become less and less relevent, or ending up becomeing what the Republican part was in Reagan's day. We have to be something fundamentally different. Not just in approach, but in fundamental values.

[Go2Peace]

88. +1000! Democrats are better educated. They understand that their values are being compromised.

[ClarkUSA]

64. So now you speak for them? lol! n/t

[Arkana]

52. Wow, where did you get all that from?

[TheKentuckian]

45. Then what's the point of the discussion? Everything is fine. Democrats will be out in

record force in November. The polling showing a huge enthusiasm gap is nonsense.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Discussion is fine. Approval polls refute rudy23's blame game. n/t

[rudy23]

74. Wow, the fourth time I've heard "blame game" today. Katrina-retro! I love it.

:sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

75. Glad you like it. It's an apt term, isn't it?

:)

[rudy23]

76. It's Rove's term, isn't it?

:)

[ClarkUSA]

80. Is it? It appears you would know more about that than I do.

I simply tell it like it is. :smoke:

[freddie mertz]

95. ClarkUSA, agenda-free truth-teller.

:patriot: :rofl:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. Some seem to want to make THAT the issue

rather than the fact that there simply weren't a lot of competitive Democratic primaries (and low Democratic voter turnout as a result) in a handful of states.

[ClarkUSA]

62. You're right, as usual.

:fistbump:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

71. Well, I wouldn't go THAT far

but thanks!
:toast:

This has just been another part of the corporate media whores' campaign to demoralize Democratic voters in this year's midterm elections. Hopefully, they (and their Republican masters) will get a nasty surprise in November, namely the realization that they weren't put back in charge of any lever of power in Washington DC.

[ClarkUSA]

73. There is definitely a media narrative to supports your point.

<<Hopefully, they (and their Republican masters) will get a nasty surprise in November, namely the realization that they weren't put back in charge of any lever of power in Washington DC.>>

I hope so, too. In the meantime, I'm working my Democratic ass off with OFA. They say a month is a lifetime in politics. We the grassroots have a chance to help shape the narrative to our favor - as we did in 2008 - if we can grow the electorate significantly in time to turn them out in November.

[Teka]

57. Like gays and lesbians?

Who HAVE been shit on by the Obama White House

[ClarkUSA]

63. Yeah, that's why "Gay Vets To Meet With White House Next Week re: DADT"

When's the last time any WH did this? Answer: NEVER.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x159374

[Teka]

67. More action, less talk

So why is the WHITE HOUSE STALLING on DADT?

It should have been repealed a year ago.

The White House is pressuring Congress NOT TO VOTE on it.

Obama talks a good game, but has NOT DELIVERED for Equality.

[ClarkUSA]

68. In this case, talk will lead to "more action" as the participants will tell you.

<<So why is the WHITE HOUSE STALLING on DADT?>>

Prove that they are.

<<It should have been repealed a year ago.>>

It's easy to preach when you have zero responsibility for passing legislation.

<<The White House is pressuring Congress NOT TO VOTE on it.>>

Again, prove that they are.

<<Obama talks a good game, but has NOT DELIVERED for Equality.>>

He's been in office for 16 months. DADT has been around for 14 years. If you want it done on your time schedule, then run for President and get it done yourself, since you think it's so easy.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GOTV]

110. "Prove that they are" - Ahh the arrogance that will drive dem voters to the polls

Yes, certainly it is the job of the disaffected to prove their feelings are legitimate before they are allowed to stay home from the polls. You are under no obligation to make your point to those whose actions you want to influence. Just demand that they prove it to YOU and then either they will fail to try to prove it or they will try and you can declare that you are unconvinced. Either way WE WIN and they are compelled to vote for Dems in November.

It's absolutely brilliant.

[Go2Peace]

86. You have surrounded yourself with peers. You are insulated from the truth friend

See my post above, the party is absolutly hemorraging. The drop startled me. I knew it had gone down but was surprised at the depth of it's falling. It hasn't been this consistantly low since 2005 for "leaners", which is probably the most difficult statistic. That bodes poorly.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Argue about the answer, but not to recognize it is the worst thing we can do.

[olegramps]

107. The sad fact is that many Democrats and most importantly the Independents don't agree with you.

From what I have observed they are dissatisfied with his handling of of these issues:

Health Care Reform without a strong public option and forcing people to purchase insurance from those who are responsible for the health care tragedy.

Appointment of members to his administration that were actually partly in blame of the financial collapse.

Education reform that has been led by Arne Duncan that is anti-union, public school busting in favor of charter schools. This has alienated one of the most powerful unions in the country.

Failure to rescind the tax cuts for the wealthy that has led to huge budget deficits. This is of primary importance. Hell, even McCain was originally opposed to that rip off.

Failure to address the discrimination against gays and lesbians in the Armed Forces.

A failed policy of bipartisanship rather than using his political advantage to obtain progressive legislation.

Failure to prosecute members of the previous administration with a lets just forget about their illegal operations and move forward.

Escalation of the war in Afghanistan without any really demonstrable success.

Has Obama had success in many areas. Absolutely, but these are issues that are primary in importance to his base.

[GOTV]

109. I "approve" of his performance too - doesn't mean my enthusiasm hasn't taken a blow to the nuts...

... we're in a much different place that I hoped we'd be a year and a half into his presidency.

[Enthusiast]

93. They don't want a majority.

This is suckening. I blame OBAMA!

[rudy23]

101. I agree---they want permanent minority status. Both parties advance the conservative agenda.

They do it by succeeding at pushing their agenda, and we do it by failing to push ours.

[Lorien]

104. It's easier to pass pro-corporate legislation

when the repugs have a slight lead (though having majorities in both houses hasn't stopped them so far).

[Teka]

41. Well, if the Democratic Party and it's head (Obama)

Actually ACTED like Democrats, it would help.

Instead, they have spent most of the past two years shitting all over the base, and ass-kissing the people that will never vote for them in the first place.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Um, Obama hasn't been president for "the past two years".

:eyes:

[emulatorloo]

55. It is weird -- most of the replies seemed designed to SUPPRESS Democratic voter turnout,

Not sure what to make of that.

At any rate, seems like the article is over-reaching a little bit. However I'm going to do as much GOTV as possible.

[mkultra]

79. demostrates a general lack of support for dems in congress

just like the polls show.

[ClarkUSA]

82. The article is hyperbolic, given that there were few competitive Democratic primary races

... (and low Democratic voter turnout as a result) in a handful of states.

<<However I'm going to do as much GOTV as possible.>>

Thank you! Me too. :fistbump:

[Go2Peace]

87. I will be voting solidly for Dems, but that does not change the truth that we have a serious problem

Many of us have been trying to wake up the beltway folks here because this was predictable when the President left behind the populist rhetoric and policy and left behind half of the party. People really wanted change, not "better than the last 8 years". Most Democrats don't want a return to the 90s, too many of us watched our jobs get shipped overseas at the end of Clinton's terms. We need fundamental change and restructuring.

[airforceone88888888]

56. ill be

voting!

[airforceone88888888]

59. and something else

anyone who doesnt go vote for Dems in november simply dont care about the world.

there are sooo many reasons to be engaged politically. if repubs dont scare you enough than you are not paying enough attention!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

94. My wife and I have voted in every election for the last 20 years, and I believe

that ANYONE who does not vote is a lazy asshole, no matter what perty they favor and no matter what reason they may give.

I want to see a lot fewer lazy assholes in the Democratic Party this year, including those here who say they won't vote till they get what they want...see how much you get from the republicans, you lazty assholes.

mark

[Vinca]

96. My husband and I will definitely turn up to vote for Dems in November,

but there will be no enthusiasm. We lefties were poo-pooed when we carped about offshore drilling and look what happened. We were ignored about single payer and turned into the biggest gift ever to big insurance. I'm very sad to be voting for "the lesser of 2 evils" again.

[and-justice-for-all]

98. I live in Indiana and I voted...nt

[SteppingRazor]

102. A silver lining: GOP voter enthusiasm cut in half:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/republican-voter-enthusia_n_565793.html

[golfguru]

105. Duh ... n/t

[Juche]

106. I'm in Indiana and I didn't vote

The reason was that the dem candidate for the house was running unopposed in the primary, and the candidate for senate will be picked by the party and be Ellsworth. And because I live in a red state, almost all the local politicians are running on the GOP ticket. I could've voted in the primary as a republican just to get a chance to vote on local politics, but I couldn't find any information anywhere about what the candidates stood for. There were over 5 people running for sheriff on the GOP ticket, but I didn't know what any of them stood for and didn't know where to find out.

If I had lived in Ohio, I definitely would have voted and I would've voted for Brunner. But the primary did not have anyone running where I live.

By comparison, the GOP primaries usually have centrists vs more conservative members. The dem primaries, as far as I could tell, did not have centrists vs progressives. At least not the ones I was eligible to vote for.