Tweet
I guess Michael Bennet won his primary in Colorado yesterday, but his winning total of votes came in under both GOP contenders. The Connecticut Governor’s primary featured just 20% Democratic turnout. While I’ve seen a lot of talk about the positive results for Democrats in last night’s primaries, it seems to me the story is about the lack of participation on the Democratic side. Similarly, a new poll out of Ohio featured this set of quotes:
(Reuters) – Ohio Republican Rob Portman holds a narrow lead over Democrat Lee Fisher in a Senate race marked by voter worries about a stumbling economy and high unemployment, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday [...]
The poll confirmed national surveys showing Republicans have a big advantage in enthusiasm about the election, with 75 percent of registered Republicans in Ohio certain they will vote and only 52 percent of Democrats certain about voting.
That could dramatically boost Republican turnout for November’s congressional elections, which typically have a lower turnout without a presidential election to build interest.
“There is no momentum and no energy at all in the Democratic base,” Clark said.
In certain states, tea party Republicans have nominated supposedly “unelectable” candidates, but an election without enthusiasm or energy in the Democratic base will naturally make anyone with an R next to his or her name electable. That’s especially true because the traditional midterm electorate features an under-representation of the voters who put Obama into office in 2008:
Will all of those young, enthusiastic Obama voters turn out in 2010? If history is any guide, probably not. Older voters are historically more likely to cast ballots in midterm elections than are voters under the age of 30. And this year, they are already more enthusiastic than younger voters about the coming campaign.
Those older voters are most likely to say the country is on the wrong track and to disapprove of the way both Congress and President Obama are doing their jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this summer.
This shows, as much as anything, that voter mobilization actually works, especially in capturing those drop-off voters. The organizing strategy of many Democratic-leaning groups is to find those voters and get them to the polls in November. But you need to provide some motivation for that to work, and the current state of the economy saps that almost completely.
56 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The White House has only itself to blame
No, your wrong. They’re already public-ally blaming us. That was what Gibbs little comment was all about. The President though doesn’t really care, He’ll be just fine working with the GOP. My guess is he’ll complain the whole time and then pass everything they put in front of him and say he was forced to or be seen as not doing what the people want! Ironic isn’t it? When he had a Dim majority he could only pass terrible compromised reforms that he complained were all he could get because of the possibility of GOP filibusters etc. But, wait and see how easily he passes whatever regressive crap the Gopers hand him staring next yr. It’s Clinton all over again , without any jobs though this time! Then in 2012 Divine Sarah and the Crusade return to DC for a real CHANGE.
Um, Dave: http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_15737486
“The number of ballots cast — more than 713,000 as clerks worked into the evening processing all the votes — was an all-time high. The turnout rates — over 40 percent for both Democrats and Republicans — matched or exceeded the turnout rates for all primaries going back at least three decades, according to archived data from the secretary of state.”
More interesting: http://coloradopols.com/diary/13377/tuesday-ballot-returns-great-news-for-betterknown-candidates
“More interesting voter trends from Magellan Strategies, a Republican polling and consulting firm, show that at least 28% of Republicans and 32.5% of Democrats that have voted thus far are casting a ballot for the first time in a Primary Election.”
Colorado Democrats certainly aren’t mobilizing to the same degree as Republicans this year, but to say they aren’t mobilizing is silly, considering the high-turnout and the high participation of first time primary voters.
I wouldn’t blame those “young, enthusiastic Obama voters” if they decided to never get used by a snake oil salesman again. With the completely unverifiable voting systems now in place across this country voting is an exercise in futility.
Both of the corporatist parties and their minions can rot in hell. I’m finsihed.
Thanks, Bob Gibbs!
…and the current state of the Corporatist Democratic party saps that almost completely. FTFY.
If voting changed anything it would be illegal.
Those youngsters are are also well aware of the vagaries of electronics. As my son used to scream at his Nintendo, “This game *CHEATS*!!”
I can assure you that I will 100% not turn out. THere is absolutely NO enthusiasm here at all. No point in wasting the half hour to 45 minutes it would take to go the polling station so I can vote for republicrats or republicans.
I don’t give a flying f*ck who is elected anymore because at this point (having voted in every election since 1980 when I was old enough to vote) I see there is nothing gained anymore in voting (and certainly nothing lost by NOT voting). Same policies, same shiteaters at the top getting their strokes, same human beings at the bottom getting the shiv.
Obama and republicrats? Go to f*cking hell.
:) Indeed they do. It’s coded in.
Look at the bright side. When the Pubs take Congress, we’ll have fewer “victories for Obama” and “landmark legislation”–those phrases we have all learned to hate and fear. I don’t think the nation can take any more victories for Obama.
His next “landmark” legislation, with republicrat and republican support, will be the “saving” of Social Security and Medicare. Obama will hail the partial privatization AND benefit cuts to Social Security and will cheer the murdering of the old or infirm with his “bipartisan” Medicare cuts, err, I mean in his “saving” of Medicare.
Cover art here sez it all.
sadly sister, you and I both know who they’ll be a blamin’ that November wednesday morning X~o
This goes with the PA Special. Dems are surprisingly excited, considering shitty leadership from Washington. I think the rank and file are scared shitless of these rethugs who are completely insane.
That is the only thing saving the D’s from their own stupidity.
If you’re going to follow a GOTV strategy, it’s not just the motivation of the voters you need to worry about. You also need folks to make the phone calls, stuff the envelopes, and walk the neighborhoods. [And make donations to "buy" this work when volunteers are insufficient.]
Gibbs and Obama just pissed on [and off] the people who did that work in 2008. With that sort of “reward” and appreciation, we won’t be back.
Plus, mid-terms are not a good place for the “OMG, if you don’t vote for him, you’ll get Sarah Palin” strategy to work.
That’s a quote from Emma Goldman.
It’s the fault of the “professional left.” They’ve screwed up everything!
Well, except for all the things that the WH and Congress screwed up, of course. But if you don’t count those…
which is exactly why i’m working with alternatives this fall. they’re going to blame me for whatever the results are, because i’m a progressive and i criticize the dem party. fine. if it’s already my fault before i’ve even voted, then i guess i’ll just go ahead and do what i want to do, instead of being told to go with Kodos again. fuck that. see, i’m different than the DLC village class; i don’t care if Gibbs says mean things about me on TV. i act as i believe and want and is right. dems should give that a try some time.
My middle child (22 years old), and you all know what that means, worked for the Obama campaign, for all of two days. This is a young man who, although very intelligent, tends to lean on his looks and charm to get through life. He signed on as a volunteer and spent two days canvassing neighborhoods. He had a most unpleasant and disgusting experience. I mean the whole two days. Not just at one door. And then, at the end of two days they told him not to come back because he didn’t make his “quota” of donations. In the past, he’s been proud to be part of the election experience, but I won’t be surprised if he passes on his next opportunity to Make A Change.
This story is not about a poll, or my twisted perception. It happened.
Obama was the first President I voted FOR, and I’m OLD! It’s been a life of voting “against” for this democrat. I can do it again. Obama et al are far superior than the repubs.
I’m thinking about registering Independent, though. I just want to make sure enough voters join the Independents to change that party first!
Whoa. Dismissing a volunteer for not making some arbitrary “quota” can be described with two words. The first is “chicken” and the second is not “salad.”
That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Turnout overall jumped because the election was mostly by mail. Everywhere vote-by-mail has been tried, it has raised turnout. Comparing it to other elections that weren’t mostly conducted by mail doesn’t provide good data.
It’s great that Colorado used mail-in voting for the primary to increase participation (are they doing that for the general as well?), but the apples-to-apples comparison is R v. D, and the R’s had higher turnout.
Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is ready: Kathleen Parker: Why Can’t Michelle Obama Be More Like George W. Bush?
It’s kind of funny, because he and I had some real go arounds about the nominees before that happened. I was an Edwards, then Clinton leaner and he was all gung ho fist bumping Obama. The truly sad part of it for me, as his mother, is that is was actually impassioned. And, now he’s just a number. Can’t get the classes he needs in school. Having a really hard time finding a job. I could just scream, but the only one who would hear me is myself. :(
Perhaps it’s time for a little faith in the American public.
Obama’s performance has been about as timid as his speeches were inspiring.
IMO, Sherrod was the nadir. It might be possible for him to sink lower but it is difficult to imagine how.
But the upshot is that most people realize we are on our own. No allegiance to either political party is … liberating.
We’re in a fight for economic survival and there is nothing quite as unifying as that. We are not as naive or helpless as our pols would like us to be.
Most people realize that if status quo continues, the only things left in this country in 50 years will be the rich and cockroaches. Telling the difference between the two will be challenging.
People will vote for whoever seems to be the best chance to avoid a further slide down the abyss.
There is hope for the midterms. I’m not so sure the same can be said for Obama.
P.S.
I’m the amateur left.
The Minnesota Democratic primary had fabulous turnout, but the GOP side wasn’t so good as they already had a name for their marquee race and didn’t much care about their downticket folks.
same point I was about to make. These folks working for Obama – and Obama – really have their head in the sand – denying that the 800,000 vote drop in the Senator Brown election in Mass had anything to do with sending a message to Obama (yet sending a message was all that I heard on the ground in Mass), and claiming Martha was a bad candidate.
“you need to provide some motivation for that to work, and the current state of the economy saps that almost completely” – I suspect that while a bad economy is more than 50% of the cause for no motivation, there are other very large points that will keep the left away from the polls – despite Chris Mathews not understanding “voting against your interests”.
David, I think you’re only scratching the surface of voter mobilization. For voters to be mobilized and enthusiastic to vote, they have to want to vote. The Massachusetts special election to replace Ted Kennedy signaled the start of Dem base apathy, because it was clear at that time that Obama and Dem leadership in Congress were not fighting for liberal/progressive values but instead had a hidden agenda to deliver for their corporate contributors instead.
This deliberate strategy of ignoring/beating up the base will not work in 2010, nor will it work in 2012, because it will only force the base to not volunteer for phone banks and GOTV efforts come election time- allowing (the non-batshit crazy) Republican candidates to start winning close elections by less than 1% margins again.
Unless electoral disaster is what the Dems and Obama want…and that’s the only conclusion I can draw (Clinton could only “reform welfare” with a repub congress, maybe that’s Obama’s plan for Social Security overhaul via the catfood commission).
Haven’t seen a galvanized trash can in years…a toilet would also have been a great choice for the cover.
Emma was on to something , wasn’t she?
THE OBAMA HOPE A DOPE is WORKING!!!
The idea of the OBAMA Hope A Dope is simple
Step 1, destroy and piss off the progressive base of the Democratic party, so Obama friends the republicans can win in 2010. (Obama could have took the FDR path and been a great Democrat, instead he followed Bush and Hoover, this was not by mistake)
Colorado shows STEP NUMBER 1! Obama is intenionally killing the energy the progressive base had in 2008
Step 2, Obama acts like he hates working with the republicans, but everything they want Obama gives them.
Step 3, Obama tells progressives in 2012 he needs their help to fight the republicans, and once elected he screws the progressive again.
Thus the Obama Hope A Dope is complete.
What progressives must do and do quickly is realize the White House is an arm of the Professional Right.
Obama and Hillary were both trojan horses, they dress like democrats but are republicans.
Yeah, the problem isn’t the “professional left” on mainstreet.
The problem is the “professional theft” by the Washington/Wallstreet axis.
I was wondering if sane republicans wouldn’t join the democratic party (since their party’s been taken over by the loonies), leaving progressives to form a new 2nd party.
For all their vitriol and volume, the wingers are still a minority of the populace after all.
How is Progressive Democrats of America as a new liberal party? Their philosophies work for me, but how viable are they and how do their membership numbers look?
There is some benefit in letting voter turnout be low for Democrats. It is really the only way to show the leaders that they have no followers.
Voting third party could mean you are a disgruntled Democrat or disgruntled Republican or disgruntled Independent voter. There is no message sent to the establishment with that vote. Voting for Republicans gives them the false sense that they are doing the right thing. Withholding your vote and sitting out the election gives a clear signal to the establishment that they have lost their base.
I will personally be encouraging people to withhold their votes from Democrats this November and in 2012. Sitting out the election is the most demonstrable way we have of making a point. Those who plan to encourage GOTV schemes are really hurting our cause. It gives the false impression that we support what is going on.
If you don’t support what has been happening then sitting out the election is the most effective thing you can do to register your disapproval. Prove me wrong.
ain’t that the truth
Sitting out a vote makes no sense to me. I hope to have someone to vote FOR. I won’t cut off my nose to spite my face.
From Glenn Greenwald: “Really, though, it’d be best if you look over there at John Boehner, become sufficiently scared, express gratitude that Obama isn’t Sarah Palin, and then keep your mouth shut about all of these matters and just dutifully get to work to elect Democrats. That’s what any good citizen would do.”
It’s all I can do (right now) just to muster enough caring so that I can at least reach the condition of apathy.
Primary contests to place the (cough) Party’s choice on the ballot for a ‘mid-term’ election? It’s amazing that the candidates themselves even show up.
Prediction: November turnout for the Democratic candidates might be very low, very high, or typical.
those people were drug addicts who are progressive crybabies who don’t understand the realities of politics and they are crazy and need to pee in a cup.
i know, because the administration told me so yesterday.
I agree; it isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. But the larger point still stands: the Colorado race can’t be used as a data point about depressed Democratic turnout, even anecdotally. The best you can say is that it’s an idiosyncratic primary in an idiosyncratic state.
This is true even if you ignore the record high turnout, as well as the participation of new primary voters (which I would suggest is a more useful number than raw turnout).
If you look at the article, it gives you a comparison from the 1998 primary (a gubernatorial primary year), where the Dems are 21% participation, while the Reps had 27%. Whereas it was 40% and 45% this time around — a smaller turnout difference than a year where Dems won five seats in the House. So historically, the turnout patterns are in line with the state. Hell, the amount of Dems who voted in the primary this year was almost as many people as people who voted in the GENERAL gubernatorial election in 2006. (take a look: http://tinyurl.com/26ynwdd)
Additionally, the GOP had two competitive statewide primaries as wells as a smattering of competitive House primaries, as opposed to the Dems’ lone Senate primary. So they had many more campaigns trying to drive up turnout than Democrats did.
What I find interesting about this is that these Democratic voters would vote for the Obama-endorsed candidate (less liberal) and not the Bill Clinton-endorsed candidate (more liberal).
I haven’t explored this at all, but off the top of my head it looks to me as if David Plouffe has found a way to identify and deliver to the voting booth brand new would-be Obama voters.
We’ve got more work to do to get the economy moving and to convince Dems they need to keep Dems in charge of Congress if they/we want more progress to be made. You can’t get get anything good done if the Repubs are put in charge.
My comment in 42, if what I suspect about what David Plouffe has managed to do is correct, would show that for those of us who have had it with Obama and Republican-minded Democrats “sitting it out” isn’t the solution. They (Obama and the DLC) have found a way to make us irrelevant.
We’ve got to find better candidates. We’ve got to take charge of our own government, and the easiest and fastest way to do that is from within the existing structures (the political parties with an iron grip over the system). We’ve got to get active from within the Democratic Party and wrench it away from the DLC.
None of this will matter if we have our own party. No party on the left, no power.
The only good that gets done with Republicans in charge is that you’ve managed to get incumbent Democrats out of the office and out of influence in the Democratic Party.
Let’s recall that that is how the DLC managed to rise to power and control over the Democratic Party. The DLC managed to make liberals irrelevant by selling “liberals can’t get elected” to Democratic voters. Instead of selling liberal policies to voters, instead of educating the voters about liberal policies and legislation and their benefits to us all, the DLC (who are really moderate Republicans in ideology) helped Republicans demonize core Democratic values.
If we learned nothing else from the Bush years, it’s that anybody can become a POTUS, and that anything can be sold to the American people, if you’re relentless in your sales pitch.
Liberal Democrats must cease being reasonable, and allowing ourselves to be made irrelevant.
Need I say more: they know you are in the bag and so need not do anything for you.
When I said in 46, “The only good that gets done with Republicans in charge is that you’ve managed to get incumbent Democrats out of the office and out of influence in the Democratic Party”, putting Republicans into power by having sat out the election or by intentionally voting for them isn’t what I’m suggesting.
What I meant is that with the system so weighted against primary challenges from the left, it’s a risk that has to be taken.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. If what is getting Democratic voters to the voting booths is that “at least he’s not McCain/Palin”, what we get is a DINO POTUS who can then make the claim he was overwhelmingly elected. When Obama and DLC Democratic politicians get into office, they spin whatever they need to spin to achieve their agenda. What matters to them is that they’re there, in power. If you’ll notice, negative feedback and poll ratings don’t have any effect on Obama or Democrats in Congress. They just keep on keepin’ on.
That goes for a dem primary as well. Trying to reform the democravens through primaries is like trying to reform the mafia through a mob war/ power struggle: in the end, it still will be an evil, corrupt organization, no matter which individual ends up on top.
You’re exactly right.
If Obama valued the left, if he felt that he needed the left, he would be courting us. One way he would be making it up to us is that he would fire Gibbs. Gibbs didn’t come out of with these words from out of nowhere. Gibbs is a known quantity. Obama chose Gibbs, welcomed him to his inner sanctum, because Gibbs is his “one-person Southern focus group”.
Helen Thomas got fired for offending comments. Why not Gibbs?
I think the “professional” appellation was intentional, and that it came from the top, probably Obamarahma. It was a warning to commentators like Cenk Uygur and probably the benefactor of this site that they want them to STFU (because they are afraid of them), while trying to make we “nonprofessional” leftists think they love us. Screw them.
The “sane” Republicans *did* join the Democratic Party, because the “Democratic Party” of today is really the Republican Party of yesteryear. The Republican Party that currently exists is split between status quo types who haven’t come to grips with the fact that the seeds they sowed have matured and gotten out of control, while those bad “seeds” are on the road to making the John Birch Society look practically mainstream.
That leaves those of us who used to be the Democratic Party base (whether we’re still registered there or not) out in the cold. Right now most seem to be content either trying to work within a system that no longer acknowledges them one bit and continually demonizes them, or they are in the process of realizing that the Party they once knew is dead. Others have moved beyond this point, and seem to be stuck in the post-mortem stage, dissecting it all to pieces.
Hopefully at some point, whether through a third party, massive civil disobedience, or other means, the former Democratic Party base will coalesce and rise again, but it’s going to depend on whether we’re content to just sit here proclaiming our bona fides as “activists” or pushing buttons on phones and computers to register our grievances, or start actively working towards alternative paths.
Oh I dunno. This ‘professional leftist’ may be too “effing retarded” and/or stoned on drugs to remember to vote in November for Canadian healthcare, abolition of the Pentagon, and Dennis Kucinich for President two years before the Presidential election actually happens.
The numbers referenced in #42 or not what I heard Jane say today on TV. She said 20% turnout for Dems this time in Connecticut vs. 42% turnout in 2006. Something’s not right here. Maybe I’m confused. I also heard that Massachusettes special election for senate had extremely low Dem turnout but the media spun it as being the poor performance by the Dem candidate.
I agree that the best alternative is to wrest control of the Dem party from the DLCers. Starting a new party is not feasible in my opinion. The question is how do we do that? What is the best way?
I suggest voting for Republicans but this is a step too far for many. I’m open to all suggestions except the one of holding our noses and voting Democratic.
Just a bit of editing needed…
The problem is the “professional theft” by the Washington/Wallstreet axis of Greed.
There! Now, it’s fixed.
The only thing I’ve been able to rouse myself to do is to work on a local candidate’s race… for the Democrat trying to replace Joe Sestak.