|
Despite what the media is saying I think 2010 could be a big year for the Democrats. The media is constantly saying the Republicans more fired up, but it seems to me that it is actually the Democrats that are more engaged in this election cycle. I know some might say it is foolish to look at two different elections in two different states to determine voter engagement, but I think looking at the Arkansas and Neveda elections show the Democratic Party is more engerized than the Republican Party.
In the Arkansas election both Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter were both able to get more than 100,000 voters. Together the received more than 300,000 votes. In the Neveda election the winner of the election was only able to get 70,000 votes. Someone could argue that the Neveda election had three people and that kept any one person from getting a large sum of votes. To that I would say even if you pushed out the third person and split the votes evenly between the remaining two candidates the leading candidate would have still only gotten 90,000-100,000 votes. The second place finisher would have only gotten about 70,000 votes. My point with all this is to say that more people turned out for the Democratic runoff than for a Republican race. In addition, after the Kentucky primaries I read a post at DU that claimed both of Rand Paul's Democratic rivals received more votes in there primary than Paul did while winning his primary.
So, it seems to me that even though the media keeps saying that the Republican Party is more energized this year I think it is the opposite. The Democrats seem to be more energized even though they are not making as much noise as the Tea Party Movement. As a result, I think if the Democratic Party puts up a fight in 2010 they could win a large number of elections.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
