Change is Good
« Its StartingMike Rappaport |
| Judith Warner on the O-victory Tom Smith »
At Politico. Given the large effort and immense money spent by the Dems, this is striking. Fewer GOP showed up as well. There's a "long term disengagement problem."
Tom Smith on November 08, 2008 at 06:39 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef010535e3ca04970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No big turnout after all Tom Smith :
TO: Tom Smith, et al.
RE: Maybe Not
There's a "long term disengagement problem. -- Tom Smith(?)
In our county, 70% of all the ballots cast in the recent General Election were 'early' or 'mail in'.
It seem to me that the key factor would be the total number of ballots cast, barring the the actions of ACORN and their ilk skewing the results. And how those numbers compare to past elections.
[Don't blame me. I voted for Bill and Opus.]
Chuck Pelto |
November 10, 2008 at 07:24 AM
There may be a lot more people registered than there are actual voters.
November 10, 2008 at 08:05 AM
The Democrats did an excellent job of turning out their core voters. Very few of the dead, house pets, illegal aliens, career criminals, lawyers and multiple registration voters missed their chance to go to the polls. The others were disappointing.
Ken Hahn |
November 10, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Neither candidate was an economic conservative/libertarian. McCain rushed back to Washington to help ram through the obscene bailout that his own party opposed.
Both candidates promised cap and trade, an obscene big business rent-seeking scheme that won't change the climate, assuming that climate change is really a threat anyway. China won't be capping, or trading. Neither will India. Seems Europe's not so excited about it, either. This seems to be an economic suicide pact, and McCain supports it as much as Obama -- I don't doubt that he'll be working to help push it through the Senate next year. Palin was a lot saner on energy, but she's the VP, so I figure she'd have about as much influence on energy policy in a McCain administration as Dick Cheney has had on the Bush administration vis-a-vis gay marriage.
Military/terrorist threats seemed to be off the table.
I voted for McCain because of what he wasn't. I figured that he might not prioritize some of Obama's proposed "changes", though I doubted he'd resist them, either.
But I didn't really believe he'd stand up for free markets, or judges I'd want to see, or gun rights, or whatever else I care about. He just might not actively try to do what I find most disagreeable.
So there you have it. There wasn't much to get me excited about voting, apart from a vague fear of Obama's cult-like following and what it will bring.
Others who are less informed about and less interested in politics had little reason to vote, with two Senators running. Neither has what it takes to be a good executive. In many ways, I'm surprised the turnout was so high -- assuming that at least some people who voted are still alive and not fictional characters or house pets.
November 10, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Don't worry about the disappointing turnout numbers this year. In 2010 and beyond all of this year's new voters like "Dela Ware", "Mickey Mouse", "Adolphe Hitler", the Dallas Cowboy starting lineup, and "pfpfpfpfpfpfpf" will have lots of extra company - thanks to ACORN.
Mwalimu Daudi |
November 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM
We have to face one really important thing. The campaign is t o o o l o n n n n g g g !!!
It went on forever. As a political junkie, I got sick of it and so did lots of people I talked to. SICK.
McCain Feingold was a sad-clown-failure. They spent 6/10ths of a billion dollars trying to get us to choose. Its madness. If a candidate ran on a platform of limiting campaigns to 4 months, he or she would win in a landslide.
Oh, and I'm against Acorn vote fraud too. If it keeps up, I may not bother to vote, Acorn won't let my candidate win.
November 10, 2008 at 05:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.