Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Why are we comparing Dems and Repubs? The Republican turnout was higher (than in previous years) when there was a contest, yes. Just like now with the Democrats.
Had the Dems settled on a nominee earlier on, their turnout would not be what it is now.
|
Of course having a contested primary is adding voters to the polls. But you are a fool if you think that is the sole (or even biggest) factor right now driving people to vote. Look at the turnout in the primaries in 2004 or 2000 for the Democrats which were contested and compare that turnout to 2008. Get back to me on your results. Take a look at the turnout in Michigan and Florida too, even knowing their votes wouldn't count at all! Sure, the turnout would have been higher if those states were contested, but with no contest, no advertising, and assurances that their votes would be meaningless, a total of 2.34 million people voted in the Dem primary in those states (compared to a total of 914,000 in 2004). You have blinders on in this election, Tex. It isn't going to go well for Republicans. Boehner and the House Republicans know it, and I think you do too but don't want to say so.
Compare the Dems turnout at any point in time during this primary season to that of Republicans as well. You simply have to conclude, if you are being honest, that the Democrats have a ton of passion and energy this year that independents and moderate Republicans are latching onto, as well as groups that previously haven't been involved at significant levels in the political process