Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
When Democrats don’t show up, Republicans like Rick Scott get to hijack elections. VOTE.
Alan Diaz/Associated Press
Wondering how we got here again, with Florida being a voters’ hell of anti-democracy and Ohio attaching non-certified “tabulators” to voting machines that Tagg Romney has a piece of?
This is what happens when Democrats, young people and minorities sit out the midterms.
In Florida during the 2008 election, 8.4 million people voted. In 2010, only 5.3 million voted. Margin of victory for Rick Scott? 1.2%. This in spite of the fact that voters knew that Rick Scott was the head of a company forced to pay the biggest fine in history for defrauding Medicare and other government programs. Reform? He is a Tea Party candidate. Only they would vote for a criminal and think it would work out well.
In Ohio, Kasich was elected by 23.5 percent of registered voters and only won by 2%. His Democratic opponent, incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland, was winning in all of the early polls. Voters were allegedly unhappy with the economy and the state budget, and the race tightened.
Remember when the Tea Party got everyone to think that the deficit was the reason to vote for people with criminal experience or a Fox News Channel host? Yes, Kasich had some experience in government in the House, but he had been a Fox News host for six years. Both probably should have been a clue that election time would be trouble under him.
Nate Silver wrote about the “enthusiasm gap” that hurt Democrats in 2010. It was 8 points in Ohio and Wisconsin. That was enough to usher in Walker and Kasich, who have each done their best to destroy voters’ rights in their swing states.
When you break down the data, minority and Democratic turnout fell in 2010. Having reliable turnout machines like Obama has plays a big role in getting voters to the polls. Nate Silver pointed that out in 2010, “What we’re probably seeing, then, is the “hangover” from the Mr. Obama’s turnout efforts in 2008. In states like Ohio and New Hampshire and Indiana, where Democrats registered tons of new voters and made sure that all of them got to the polls, a lot of them didn’t participate this time around.”
Young voter turnout fell 60% from 2008 to 2010. “51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year. In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.”
They didn’t vote because they were unhappy with congress and unenthused about the candidates, but guess what that got us? A much, much worse congress. When young people vote, they tend to vote Democratic. This is why Republican governors hired in 2010, when those same young people sat out the election, have been working so hard to disenfranchise young people (college students) from voting.
I won’t get into how Democrats allowed themselves once again to buy into the Republican narratives against the change they sought. That is for another day, but it goes to show that morale is worth a lot. This is why Republicans work so hard to kill Democratic morale. It works.
Many voters only think of showing up in presidential elections. Let’s hope that the widespread abuse of voting rights in 2012 will wake voters up to the necessity to vote in every single election, and be sure to fill out the entire ballot even though it’s a real chore. If you must, think of it like taking the trash out instead of thinking you’re going to get something great. It will pay off.
Related Posts :
The early voting numbers in North Carolina are trickling in, and they don't look good for Romney. Democr ...
In a conference call with reporters Obama campaign manager Jim Messina dropped some devastating numbers ...
Three new polls of the critical swing state of Ohio all agree. Barack Obama is currently leading Mitt Ro ...
Despite the high turnout for the protests, and the high number of recall petition signatures, Republicans ...
The Obama campaign announced today that their voter registration and early voting margins in Ohio, Iowa, ...
25 Responses to When Democrats don’t show up, Republicans like Rick Scott get to hijack elections. VOTE.
Public Service Advertisements
D. W. Skinner
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 7:50 am
If this bald-headed monstrosity were standing motionless in a street as a bus came hurtling at him at a deadly speed… I’d buy a bag of popcorn and a splatter-guard and enjoy the show!
Paws
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 7:53 am
Rick Scott is evil. Anyone who tries to disenfranchise voters should be locked up.
Paws
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 7:52 am
I know it’s controversial but I wonder if we should have mandatory voting in this country. Other countries have it and they have a good turnout for each election. I’m just thinking it is a way not only to increase turnout but to negate these voter suppression efforts. Not sure how others feel…thoughts?
Xander
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 8:52 am
That would require declaring a national holiday. People like to drink on national holidays. Drunk people tend to vote more right-wing when they are drunk. Australia has this problem. Look it up.
mags
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
xander, I don’t know where your information comes from but I have never heard that about Australia and I live in Australia.
Paws
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I’m not sure of the data you cite concerning national holidays and drinking, or voting habits when one has been drinking, but I don’t think it would require a national holiday. I do think it would require a commitment by states to expand voting hours on voting day so people can make it to the polls.
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 9:40 am
To add to what Xander said, there are a lot of employers in this state who would go out of their way to prevent their employees from voting Democrat… like scheduling overtime on voting day – they already try to block Democrats from voting or try to coerce people towards voting Republican (that’s part of the reason Scott reduced the early voting days). It would require a mandatory holiday, and while I think that’s rather a good idea, the idea of drunk voters isn’t.
I can’t understand someone getting drunk because it’s a holiday, but some people will be STUPID.
Paws
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
As I mentioned above, I don’t think it requires a national holiday, but you do bring up a good point regarding employers. This would require a several pronged approach; for instance, before we passed a mandatory voting law, we’d have to have some kind of law in place so that people were not denied their right to vote by their employers.
I mean, this would all take a sea change in how voting is viewed in this country. There are people right now, as you mention, that are trying to disenfranchise voters and the attitude that says that’s okay to do would have to be changed.
It’s not an easy thing, that’s for sure. Lots of things to consider.
buckeyewill
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Man, really some mean comments about Slick Rick Scott.
Oh well here in Ohio, we have Wall $treet Johnny who tried to destroy public employees and is thinking about leasing the Ohio Turnpike to his buddies and “Pitchfork Jon” Husted who would make THE ORIGINAL Ben Tillman blush with envy.
Yes, NOT VOTING do have consequences.
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Scott and the Republicans have been floating the idea of turning over the Interstate system (or portions thereof) to a for-profit corporation to run. They’d put up toll booths to pay for maintenance. The corporations would buy the rights to the roads and then could make profits off of them.
So far, its hasn’t flown. People aren’t that stupid yet (as long as the churches keep their brainwashing up, they may end up that stupid).
They also tried to turn over a few bridges and toll roads – privatizing them so they can cut taxes. That got blocked before it left the gate.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:10 am
Dont kid yourself, taxes would not drop if they did make them private
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Don’t I know it. In fact, I expect that they would have risen, and they’d find more ways to turn it over to the rich.
Everything in this state has tended to move the burden for public works and expenditures onto the backs of the poor and the middle class. The slow-but-growing change from taxes to “fees and penalties” for instance… that hurt the poor (and get directed to the poor) far more than the rich.
Reynardine
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 8:52 am
I am a Democrat, I live in Florida, and I vote in EVERY election. On some of the downballot ones, I am the only person entering the polling place, which houses two precincts.
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I think I’ve only sat out one election… back when I was beginning to understand that the Republicans were actually lying all the time and I’d just learned that they really didn’t give a damn about ordinary people, but I didn’t know yet that the people I’d been taught for most of my life to distrust and avoid – liberals and Democrats, were far more trustworthy and honest (and that they generally meant it when they said they cared about people).
That would have been maybe 2002… I was still brainwashed in 2000 and a “staunch conservative” (and Bush supporter) although I’d started having real doubts because of the things I’d started to see.
Never again.
hadassah weinreb
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 9:09 am
The “enthusiasm gap” was due to Obama capitulating to the Republicans, his not campaigning for the Dems in 2010, turning his back on his campaign programs & the Dems running poor candidates & weak campaigns, especially in the Mass Senate race where Scott Brown beat Martha Cloakley.
Voters need to be reminded constantly of wahat is at stake in mid-term elections. It’s the Dem Party that bears the guilt of not doing the required heavy lifting.
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 9:49 am
To a degree you’re right, but when you’re fighting against churches actively campaigning for your opponent, added to probable election fraud (digital voting machines anyone?), plus a slew of local Democrats running who insist on following the advice of an unknown “campaign advisor” who for instance insists that signs aren’t any good and that people have to make phone calls (turning people off after getting call after call after call), and also running into stiff opposition or lack of reporting the truth from the mainstream media…
It’s an uphill battle all the way.
A Walkaway
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 9:53 am
I find it odd that Scott won by about 1%. Isn’t that the amount they wanted the people to rig the election by (by reprogramming voting machines)?
We can’t do anything about it, of course… but I still think Scott actually lost the election. After all, even the papers were opposed to him AND pointed out the fact that he was the owner of a company convicted of one of the worst cases of fraud against Medicare (which he claimed he wasn’t aware of). A Republican has to be exceptionally crooked and slimy to get the papers in opposition to him/her.
Jason Easley
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Your blame Obama for the midterm dropoff point is completely 100% wrong. Democrats turned down the president in 2010 because the right wing ginned up furor over Obamacare made Democrats run away from him, much to their own detriment. Poor candidate selection also wasn’t a large factor because the Democrats were the incumbent party. They had a large House majority, so those poor candidates that you refer to were Democratic incumbents.
The Coakley race was a special election that didn’t occur in November, so it is inaccurate to lump it in with the Republican wave. Although, the one thing that you did manage to get right is that Coakley was a terrible candidate.
The problem with only looking at elections from one perspective is that we only see the things that “our” side did wrong. It is like a sports fan who never gives their opponent credit for winning, but focuses on what their team did to lose. The truth is that Republicans were able to take advantage of voter anger over the economy, while simultaneously building on the Astroturf Obamacare/tea party infrastructure.
Rick Scott was elected with 1.2% of the vote. John Kasich around 2%, Tom Corbett less than a percent. If Democrats show up, they win those elections. Blaming the party for voter laziness and inability to see their civic duty is a pretty weak excuse.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:07 am
So Mitt has not spent the last year bashing Obama heavily? Did you just get here?
Obama has seen the job creation of 5.3 million jobs after Bush crashed the job market. Yet Romney does exactly what you accuse Obama of.
Think
woody
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
NAFTA was signed on Clinton’s watch. Not that you understand economics.
Shiva (Moderator)
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
NAFTA? Really? Not that NAFTA has anything to do with the subject matter. But becuase you watch Fox News let me tell you that NAFTA was negotiated by republicans, was already signed between the signature countrys and approved in our congress before Clinton came into office. Clinton did sign it. I wish he hadnt. But lets not pretend it was a CLinton program.
Nice try.
Bob Doyle
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Where is RICO Scott, where has he been over the weekend ? We saw the notice of a Grand Cayman Bank symposium keynoted by exPres. W Bush on secret banking options available for well qualified blah blah blah.RICO Scott may well be indicted again.
woody
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
So if democrats don’t show up to vote, then the republican wins is an indictment of a hijacked election? If democrats to turn out to vote, then it’s an honest election and a shining example of democracy?
You are not going back to the moon any time soon America.
kathy
Nov. 5th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Hanging chads for the George W take-over, to more votes showing up the next day in Waukesa County for the Walker take-over. It is not suprising that Tagg Romney has his fingers in the pot for dear old dad and Rick Scott hijacking the election in Florida. They cannot win any other way than to cheat and lie. This is what are kids are learning and that is why the country is in the state it is.
Gary Vaughn
Nov. 6th, 2012 at 12:40 am
NAFTA was only between Canada, Mexico and us, the shady trade agreements with China came compliments of Nixon and Reagan elevating them to most favorable trade country every year.