It is no secret that voter turnout in US elections is generally pathetic. It is also no secret that minorities and the youth vote are the most apathetic when it comes to going to the polls.
Two part question:
Regardless who the Democratic candidate winds up to be, do you think a large voter turnout would swing the election for the Democrats?
And do you think the war is a big enough motivation to get those apathetic voters to the polls?
Well, there are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans I’m sure, thus a higher turnout would favor them. I’d say this is a possibility.
Maybe- depends on how the controversy develops over the next year. Generally, people’s wallets are a bigger motivation. If the economy continues to suck (doesn’t get better, gets worse, whatever), that may do more damage to Bush.
Sorry, meant to answer my own questions:
Yes, I think that the vast majority of people who do not go to the polls are Democrats.
Although I would like to think so, I am not sure. The only thing I know is that a lot of minorities who work in my office are in an uproar against the war (as their family is over there fighting and dying) that I think there will be a larger turnout. Call it wishful thinking, but the fact that people are already talking about voting is a positive sign.
I’m pessimistic. I fear that the voter turnout in 2004 will be no better than that of 2000.
In 2000, it looked likely to be a close election. There was certainly enough difference between Bush and Gore to matter. That is, even if you didn’t really much like the one you preferred, you couldn’t help but see one as being significatantly preferable to the other. If you were paying any attention at all. It would seem that many were not.
There is another question one might consider: never mind anything that’s happened since, is the botched election of 2000 a big enough motivation to get more people to the polls?
DMark, what makes you think that the vast majority of people who do not go to the polls are Democrats? I’m inclined to think that they are neither Democrats nor Republicans. I think many of them are people who don’t see either of the major parties as being enough better than the other to matter.
Hazel has a point, though I’d bet there are more registered Democrats who don’t vote than registered Republicans. The GOP has gotten very good at mobilizing the supporters it has, and I don’t think the Dems are as strong in that regard.
I think most of the people who aren’t voting are looking for a 3rd choice.
Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota mainly on the strength of first-time voters. Perot also snapped up a huge amount of first-timers in 1992.
If a 3rd party candidate has a chance to win, the turnout in his favor can be huge. The 1992 election had good turnout, and I’d bet that most of that extra 10% or so went to Perot.
No, I really don’t think it will make much difference. Remember, the Dems in Florida tried to make the problems with the Presidential election one of the major complaints against Jeb Bush during his gubernatorial campaign. He was re-elected by a rather large margin, IIRC.
I think a large turnout would tend to help the Dems, although Bush has such a large lead at this point that it might not be enough to cause him to lose.
Not at all. The election is over a year away. By then, Iraq will be pacified, or mostly pacified. The Iraq victory will be regarded as a Bush accomplishment by most Americans.
BTW I expect voter turnout to be lower than ever in 2004, unless Hillary Clinton runs. The current group of Democratic candidates have not been able to generate much interest.
Listen, if I can get off of my ass a year ahead of the election to get registered as an overseas voter, then I’d be willing to bet that yes more people will make an effort this time around. I think you’ll also see more people that used to think “it doesn’t make a difference” and cast for a third party vote might actually think there is a measurable difference between the dems and repubs
Except for the 1,500 dead soldiers and a trillion dollars of war debt. Think anybody will notice, december?
Golly, december, I’m more or less familiar with the habits of lefties, but what the hell have you Tighty Righties been smoking? You gaze upon disaster and debacle and see only sunshine and roses abloom!
The Apathy Party rules America. A large voter turnout would be a clear indication of widely shared public indignation. Now the truly hard corps of either isn’t likely to change, Lord knows the left hasn’t seen anything from this “uniter, not divider” to change thier opinion.
But the ground is eroding under his feet. And its happening where he can’t see, amongst the “working class” families whose spouses and children are the “first to serve”. Johnnie isn’t coming home next week, nor is Janie, nor Tyrone, nor Pablo. And thier famlies and dependents are talking to thier friends and neighbors at the beauty shop, the truck stop, and in my very own trailer park. And they don’t like it, not one little bit.
GeeDubya desperately needs a major troop withdrawal, he needs another big speech in front of an adoring crowd of returning heroes. And he needs it right now!
What, you think this recent feeling out of the UN for troops is a result of born-again multilateralism? A sudden resurge of respect and admiration for the institution. Ha!
Karl Rove is having nightmares of vast populist style discontent amongst the families and dependents of service personnel, and he wakes up screaming!
Bliss.
“Look, over there! It’s Osama bin Laden! He’s got WMDs in Syria! Terror threat level red! Vote for George!”
Voter turnout will not be a factor, since it is easily erased by Republican dirty tricks. Gore won Florida and the country in 2000, but Jeb Bush and Choicepoint purged about 50,000 elegible black voters from the rolls, most of whom would have voted Democrat. Add to that the surprise victories of Chuck Hagel and other Rethuglicans who own voting machine companies. The 2004 election will be stolen also. But hey, Kennedy stole the 1960 election and nobody ever questioned his legitimacy.
Wow! That would be horrible. Too bad it’s a wild exaggeration. So far, the number of casualties in Iraq is under 300, and just barely surpassed the number of casualties in the first Gulf war. Considering that that war was intended to simply push Iraq out of Kuwait, and this one was an invasion and occupation of an entire country, the total casualties are astoundingly low. They’d be astoundingly low even if they WERE 1500. Even assuming soldiers continue to be killed at the same rate as today, it won’t be over 500 by the next election.
As for the ‘trillion dollar war debt’, you’re off by a factor of about ten. So far, the war has cost under 100 billion, and ongoing costs are expected to be something like 50 billion a year.
If the body count continues to grow at today’s rate, the total killed in battle will be well over 1,500. But the trend has been increasing, and I see no reason to think we won’t see that mortality rate continue to increase in the future. Now, perhaps you find that acceptable, but the question is, will a majority of voters? You and “Yellowcake George” seem to be counting on it, a prospect I find comforting.
I think you’re seeing a very temporary phenomenon. After the Hussein assholes were killed, the Iraqi people have felt less fearful of the Ba’athist regime coming back. Whoever is left in that regime had to step up the attacks, lest the people think that it’s all over and get on with their lives.
The U.S. is getting them, one by one. There isn’t an unlimited supply - this isn’t a popular uprising by the people. It’s a collection of left-over thugs who have to be dug out and killed or captured. Once the back of this resistence is broken, Iraq will get a lot more peaceful.
What evidence can you offer that the resistance is made up entirely, or even substantially, of “dead-ender” Baathists. That is clearly the preferred interpretation of our the Admin, but is there any actual evidence that this is the case?
It is my suspicion that the resistance is nativist and simply anti-American. They are perfectly happy to see the Saddamites dead. They are just as happy to see our people dead. This is not the foundation of a happy relationship.
What evidence can you offer, Sam, that you are right and I am wrong? Any?
Agree with elucidator. We are an occupying force, and we’re trying to take their guns away. They want to keep their guns, and get us out. And perhaps some are a bit peeved about civilian deaths, lack of food and electricity, etc.
Also, our plan seems to be to see to it that whatever new government is formed will be our kinda government: a secular democracy (or perhaps a secular government that gives the apearence of being democratic?). Many Iraqis do not want democracy, do not want equal rights for women, etc. Many would prefer to put the Ayalollas in charge. Our occupying forces are seen as being their to prevent them from establishing the kind of government they want.
Given how all your other predictions about this Iraq fiasco have turned false, Sam, you may want to reconsider this one.