Voter turn out was low in Massachusetts and in

[left of center]

Virginia and New Jersey in the fall. Some of my Republican coworkers are saying that 2010 will be a Republican sweep, but I'm thinking that it will be a different game when more people come out to vote. Democrats will lose seats if history is any guide, but probably not what Republicans are expecting.

2008 to 2009 Percentage Turnout
Massachusetts, ~3 million, ~2.2 million, -27%
Virginia, ~3.5 million, ~2 million, -43%
New Jersey, ~3.8 million, ~2.4 million, -37%

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html
http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/njresults.html

Any thoughts?

[elocs]

1. No thoughts. I had one but it died of lonliness.

:bounce:

[timeforpeace]

22. Was it that turnout was quite high for an OFF year election? You can't compare it to 2008. Fail.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Young voters and urban/black voters are infamous for not turning out in off years. We don't have

same pulls to get people to the polls that Republicans have, such as gay marriage, etc.

So, a lot of our voters stay home. It's always been that way, but I'll admit to being surprised by the degree that Obama's election has not kept more people from dropping out of off-year elections.

[bertman]

18. " . . . but I'll admit to being surprised by the degree that Obama's election has not kept

more people from dropping out of off-year elections."

The momentum was lost with all of the promises not kept or not at least fought for by the Obama administration. Throw into the mix the love affair with Wall Street and the Corporate titans, and you have a recipe for a dispirited Democratic base.

[KingFlorez]

3. I do agree with this, turnout is everything

I think this is the result.

House: 244-191
Senate: 56-44 (maybe 57-43)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Little Star]

6. yep

[theothersnippywshrub]

10. The true irony is that Teddy turned the republican party

into a pro-choice, pro-universal health care party. It may turn out to be his greatest accomplishment.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

5. Republicans will be busy defending

some of their seats from the teabaggers. I read yesterday John McCain will be running against a teabagger
that has a popular radio show in Phoenix. Should be interesting how much money comes in and how
they might bring out the Independent vote to hopefully cancel each other out.

[Kaleva]

7. You need to compare 2009 with 2006 and not 2008.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. indeed...poor comparison...

[theothersnippywshrub]

15. Good catch and excellent point. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

31. True. But folks expected, rightfully so, Obama's voters - so many 1st time voters - to stick. nt

[Kaleva]

32. Turnout for the Democratic primary in MA was especially low. But few noticed that.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Yes. Same thing. You'd think Obama voters would want to 'repay' Ted Kennedy's legacy. nt

[Kaleva]

34. What about the Ted Kennedy voters?

One would think they'd have wanted someone more liberal then Caokley to be their nominee.

[AlinPA]

8. Thanks for the data. IMO, the amount of money that the republicans will have spent

for them by corporations will dwarf anything we can raise. The money will be so great that they can overwhelm us with GOTV TV ads, radio ad, print, mailers, billboards, etc. (Could be 10's of billions vs our 10's of millions).

Turnout for us is everything.

[left of center]

17. had a conversation with these Republican coworkers about the

supreme court ruling as well. They vote Republican but think of themselves more as Libertarians, albeit conservative ones. Anyway, they think it is fine that corporations can contribute as much as they want to campaigns so long as there is disclosure. They were so dismissive of my points against the ruling that I can't help but think they believe the ruling will help THEIR ideal candidates get elected. They also apparently don't hold the same level of distrust towards big business as they do towards government.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. But Why Was Turnout Low?

In MA is was because many of us had little stomach to vote for either candidate - we expected that Coakley would just help the Dems to continue their "we suck a bit less than the Republicans" strategy, and have had it with that stunt.

[Sherman A1]

11. And there Ya, go....

if I don't see any sign of hope before November, I may sit this one out.

[Kaleva]

12. Turnout in MA was high. Off year elections have to be compared to other off year elections.

[left of center]

21. What do you think is behind these off year results?

[nevergiveup]

14. You taught them a lesson.......showed'em good

[MannyGoldstein]

26. I Voted For Coakley

But actually, based on Obama's new found embrace of Democratic values, it did show 'em.

[nevergiveup]

35. Sorry ..... I got the impression you did not vote.

[virgogal]

16. And what on earth is accomplished with that attitude? If the cities'

turnout had been higher Coakley would have won and it sure as hell would be better than what we have now.

[karynnj]

19. Not to mention, a case could be made that the very early polls

when neither candidate was all that well known, might have been almost a "party" preference vote - with the Democrats showing the 30 points ahead that Kerry and Kennedy had the last times they ran. The numbers changed as people met the candidates. The fact is that Brown energized the Republicans and he likely won a huge image based "nice guy" vote in the center.

That initial vote was early December when the shape of the healthcare bill was basically known.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[left of center]

23. Why do you think people "voted" against the healthcare bill?

Do you think they were voters not wanting reform or not wanting watered-down reform?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

29. Many MA people writing here disagreed that that was the case

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Statistical]

24. Turnout was actually very high by historical standards.

Comparing an off year election to highest turnout Presidential election in the history of the United States is a false comparison.

Try comparing the last off year election to the current one.

You are comparing apples & oranges.

[ddeclue]

25. 43% is pretty damned good turnout for a special election. They are typically around 20%

[tabbycat31]

28. I could have confirmed that in NJ

so many people didn't care to vote and that drove me crazy.

This november I'm getting sidewalk chalk and drawing arrows directing people to polling places and writing VOTE all over the sidewalks.