Nov. 4 -- What explains the Republican victories in 2010 and what may they tell us about 2012? It's obvious that the candidates who get the most votes will win. But there's an important kernel of wisdom there: Who wins elections depends heavily on who shows up to vote.
That helps explain a lot of what happened this year and what may be in store for candidates in 2012.
The 2010 midterm election experienced the highest turnout for a midterm election in the past 30 years. An estimated 41.5 percent of those eligible to vote participated, which appears to have topped the 41.1 percent in the 1994 midterm elections -- another good year for Republicans.
There were only slight changes in who voted in 2010 compared with the last midterm election in 2006. According to the exit polls, 79 percent of 2006 voters were white and 78 percent of 2010 voters were white. The youngest people were less slightly less likely to vote, with 12 percent of those under age 30 voting in 2006 compared with 11 percent in 2010. The electorate noticeably grayed, with people age 65 and older increasing from 19 percent of voters in 2006 to 23 percent in 2010.
Interestingly, those most affected by the economic downturn were a smaller share of the electorate; those with household incomes less than $50,000 were 40 percent of the 2006 electorate, but were only 37 percent of the 2010 electorate.
These changes in who voted are interesting, but they are not enough to explain the dramatic Republican House of Representatives victories. Those who voted in 2010 simply favored Republicans more across the board. The changes were starkest among the elderly. In 2006, they evenly split their votes between Democratic and Republican House candidates. In 2010, they favored Republican House candidates 59 percent to 38 percent. Independents flipped their allegiances, with 57 percent supporting Democratic House candidates in 2006 and 56 percent supporting Republican House candidates in 2010.
To understand what the 2010 elections may mean for 2012, one has to appreciate that presidential electorates are much different than midterm electorates. For one, turnout is higher; 61.6 percent of those eligible to vote did so in 2008 -- the highest turnout since the 62.8 percent who voted in 1964. Who votes in presidential elections but skips midterm elections? They are the youth: 18 percent of the 2008 electorate was under age 30. They are minorities: Only 74 percent of the 2008 electorate was white. And they are Democrats and independents. Whereas 32 percent of 2008 voters identified themselves as Republicans, 38 percent of 2010 voters did so.
So what do all these numbers tell us?
First, we have entered a time of extreme volatility in the electorate, with dramatic swings possible from one election to the next. Second, we are almost certain to see at least a slightly more Democratic-friendly electorate in 2012 as traditional members of the Democratic coalition engage again.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
If the breakdown were similar to the 2006 mid term then we can see that many Dems and Independents voted republican - the number of people that voted republican in local elections is phenomenal
You also overlooked the redistricting that will be implemented for the 2012 elections - this time it will greatly favor the GOP as they have so many State Houses under control
http://www.pcworld.com/article/135461/diebold_voting_machines_vulnerable_to_virus_attack.html
Okay, PC World has it, is it mainstream now? It’s the 500 pound gorilla in the room. Voting machines are not reliable.
Right but overall participation was almost 20 points lower in 2010 and I'd expect that much of the difference in participation is due to left wing independents staying home. What was the % of independent in 2008 and in 2010? Anybody knows?
!
Rhetoric can only go so far. Policies matter and Obama and the Democrats did not articulate any policies except for right wing nostrums that the private sector should be the engine of all economic growth. This policy has utterly failed, except for the upper crust that needs no assistance.
As for the Republicans doing what they say they will do, liberals should actually listen to Obama and the Democrats. They, too, wull do what they say they will, if you listen. They, too, plan on giving money to big business (they already are) while cutting SSC and Medicare (in the planning stages).
Two years have been enough for those in need to sense the fraudulent claims of Obama and the Democrats. No amount of right wing and media propaganda can change the reality that many who hoped the 2008 campaign ushered in a new era today feel they were had - and so they did not bother.
So what happened two years later? In a word, nothing. Those who turned out for Obama and the Democrats in 2008 stayed home in large numbers this time. They concluded that there was not much worth voting for.
The numbers bear this out - right wing candidates that lost in 2008 won with much fewer votes in 2010.
No policy to match the rhetoric = low turnout. Will Obama and the Democrats learn? Of course not. They have been telegraphing compromise with the right wing since before the election and reiterated it since.
I have decided to make it my job to get people started on the path to understanding basic civics. For goodness sakes!
Older conservative white voters tend to vote more republican, and voted heavily in favour of John Mccain. Once the rest of the electorate stayed away more, the die was cast.
People vote to protect what they have, not for what they may have in the future. Sad, but true.
But the most important is ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES SHOULD BE ABOLISH!!
In my area, there was actually a small bump in turnout from the Obama strongholds among minority and college-age and a small decrease among older voters. The difference was that the older voters who showed up went overwhelmingly Republican.
But the problems is that many will feel force against their will to vote, when actually isn't true.
Every citizen is a property of the state, and when the nation call [like this case] if the candidates aren't their choice, just vote-blank.
But every citizen should have the obligation to vote. period
As for the Electoral College, if you can figure out realistically how you see that happening let me know. You need 2/3 of each house of Congress to pass the amendment and then you need to get 3/4 of the states. How do you expect to get 2/3 of each house? And even, even, if you were able to get it past Congress you then need 3/4 of the states. The smaller states will never agree because they won't give up the power they have in the electoral college. Beyond that, all it takes is 13 states to say no and the amendment is killed. Hell, the Southern states alone will kill it. Do you think for one minute they are going to let the Leftists in California and the Northeast run the country based upon popular vote?
You really should lay out exactly your plan to implement this and how you would expect it to succeed based upon the political realities of the day. Otherwise, you are blowing just a lot of hot air!
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
www.NationalPopularVote.com
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states. The small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged states under the current system.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
In the 13 smallest states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.
Another idea, if we don't want to go the mandatory voting route, would be to move election day to a Saturday, that way more people will be off of work and will have the time to wait in line to vote. Or more States could opt for early voting.
It really is a shame that half of 40%, or basically 20% of eligible voters, get to determine the direction of our country.
I'd also like to see the use of instant runoff voting so more people could make their first choice for a third party if they so choose, then make their second (safety pick) vote for an established party. That way third parties won't play the role of spoilers, and more people will feel better about voting their conscience instead of the "lesser of two evils" system we have now.
***wasnt high turnout supposed to help democrats?