Useful Historical Passage Of The Day
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | The Presidential Race — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the New York Times:
Republican Party analysts also note that both Ronald Reagan and the senior George Bush were elected after Republican primaries in which turnout was lower than in the Democratic primaries.
"Democrats seem to frequently ignore the lessons of history, and they do so in 2008 at their own peril," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
The sheer intensity of the Democratic primary battle could be problematic over the long haul. Outside analysts say that the sharp disputes and deepening divisions between Senator Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton could, if not resolved, leave some voters disenchanted if their candidate did not prevail.
"That's a real question: Will the Democrats come away with a more divided, less upbeat set of constituents following the struggle between Obama and Hillary Clinton?" said Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center.
This is, at least, a serious argument. Can we take it seriously instead of automatically assuming that higher turnout in the Democratic primaries = Democrats winning in November?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Kansas DA Fighting Planned Parenthood To Make a Difference — Comments (4) »
Useful Historical Passage Of The Day 3 Comments (0 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If you think about it, had it not been for Ross Perot, there probably wouldn't have been a Democrat President for the last Quarter-Century. The higher primary turnout appears to be an indicator of...high primary turnout.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
-and I'm sure this has been pointed out elsewhere- that Democratic turnout in the primary is high because everyone's got someone to vote for. White women, hispanics et. al. gravitate towards Hillary, while young voters and blacks lean toward obama.
The rub will be that in the general election, due to the bitter and divisive primary elections, I think a great number of democratic voters will sit it out. Given the animosity between the black and hispanic community in many places, many Hispanics won't vote for Obama. Similarily, given the race baiting of the Clinton campaign, I think Hillary has lost a huge number of black votes in the general, which will be a huge problem for her, obviously.
I would not be surprised to not only see Republican turnout go up in the general, as jamesbhai said, but also for the democrat turnout to drop, perhaps quite significantly.
I didn't know that.
Typically, Republicans fall in rank much more quickly and soundly than Democrats. Perhaps it's due to the nature of the parties (Democrats more free-spirits, Republicans more pragmatic) or the wide-open nature of their primaries.
Interestingly enough, while the media has been portraying the Republican primary as more likely to be decided later at the convention (might be the case), I could see the Democrats fracturing more since it appears that Obama has all the momentum, but Hillary still has name-recognition and the DLC. Dems are slinging all kinds of non-issue mud in the debates, whereas Republicans is based on things such as timetables, taxes, economy, on the issues.
The Republicans just have not coalesced, which I think will be solved over time. Democrats WERE coalesced and are fracturing. Two parties, headed in opposite directions.