Democratic turnout for primaries lowest in 80 years

[Bluebear]

For the first time since 1930, more Republican voters showed up to vote in statewide primaries this year than Democrats -- another sign of the huge challenges facing President Obama's party in this year's elections.

The new figures come from a just-released report by voter turnout expert Curtis Gans of American University.

Gans looked at 35 primaries held before Sept. 1 and found that 4 million more Republicans voted than Democrats -- statistical proof of the "enthusiasm gap" that pollsters and pundits have been talking about.

That, combined with the fact that the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats has been on a steady decline for decades, spells big trouble for the president's party, Gans said: "The Democrats are at an enormous disadvantage."

This comes after the 2008 election, when all the energy was on the Democratic side.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/09/american-university-expert-democratic-turnout-lowest-in-80-years/1

===

Certainly one has to wonder where that energy went? I keep hearing that **only** on DU are we complaining that we "didn't get out ponies"...

[BeFree]

1. heh

Because the Dems have no controversy. Pukies, OTOH, have the t-baggers after them.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. In fairness, don't we have an unusually high number of incumbents?

[county worker]

the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats has been on a steady decline

I heard just the opposite in 2008. I think some of this is just an attempt to make it so, sort of self fulling prophesy stuff.

[Subdivisions]

3. For each DUer that didn't get their pony, there's 100 more out there that

feel the same way.

[BeFree]

5. Well

The turnout in 2008 was quite amazing. The fact that it was largely fueled by first time voters who had been so badly burned by bushco, and bushco is now sleeping, is a reason why there is now such an apparent drop.

No controversy on our side. However, the pubbies are roiling.

[daleanime]

4. Maybe Arkansas wasn't the only state....

to close 'selected' polling sites?:think:

[LynneSin]

6. Alot of democrats ran unopposed or against candidates with little impact

There was no liberal version of the tea party (thank goodness - I think that would be impossible since tea partiers are the dumbest of dumb out there) and therefore many of these democratic primaries had little excitement in regards to the vote.

Like here in Delaware - there will be a major GOP turnout because the tea party candidates are trying to pull out an upset over 2 mainstream republican candidates (Castle for Senate and Rollins for House, which in DE is also statewide). Whereas on the Democratic side we have Coons and Carney that will win their respective elections. Almost a no-brainer.

I'll do my best to remember to vote next Tuesday (our primaries are late) but won't sweat it if I run late from work and forget to do it since I know my candidates are pretty much set.

But somehow the news will extrapolate that the GOP will have a bigger turn out in the November election. Seriously - it makes no sense whatsoever.

[alstephenson]

9. Same here in Arizona.

I voted in the primary, but it was almost a waste of time. Many Democrats running uncontested.

[DFLforever]

7. We're not the party doing internecine warfare

in the primaries this year...one almost pities Repug frenzy.

[Common Sense Party]

8. Oh, but we'll be FIRED UP come November! Right? We'll turn out in DROVES

and we're not losing ANYTHING! Woo hoo! Yee haw!




Or so I read around DU (Delusional Underground).

[alstephenson]

10. What a bunch of B.S.

So the "enthusiasm gap" is all about turnout in the primaries? Faulty logic.

[Bluebear]

13. "Democratic turnout for primaries lowest in 80 years" is not "BS" or faulty logic.

It is just a fact, which you can discuss as you see fit, but it's not "BS".

[alstephenson]

17. The faulty logic is

that "voter enthusiasm" = turnout for the primaries. I don't accept that premise.

[jwirr]

11. With our family that means nothing. We did not vote them but we will

in November. All of us.

[Bluebear]

14. As will we. :)

:thumbsup:

[w8liftinglady]

12. I am hoping that in Texas we will have a large turnout for the general election

we have a really great line-up of Democratic candidates...ones that could actually make a difference....those of us in the Texas Democratic Party have tried to spread the message as best we can..

[Winterblues]

15. Could that possibly be because most Democrats are happy with their Representation.

Unless you are really distressed over your Representation, why would you want to Primary an incumbant? I know of a few Rinos that deserved a primary challenge but I would bet not a single progressive had to deal with much of a primary opponent..

[Bluebear]

16. A very good point!

I'm thrilled with my Rep. :)

[ThomWV]

18. Are they including self-described Tea Party candidates as Republicans