This Best Graph I've Seen On The Problem With The 2010 Election

[okaawhatever]

For me this is the most concise illustration of the issue in 2010. We can blame the President, the Congressional candidates, the ACA or any other policy position but that's not the issue. The issue is voter turn-out for the mid-terms. The good news is we don't really have to change anyone's mind, we just have to get them to the polls. If we can turn a few more independents our way all the better.

[Exposethefrauds]

1. The Solution is Simple MAKE People WANT to Vote

And frankly 2 corporate candidate’s representing the voter’s choice is not going to be a big motivating factor to get people to want to make the effort to vote.

As it stands now I am motivated to vote AGAINST Hillary in the primary.

I no longer care if the RePub/TeaHadist wins either, the people don’t win with a
Corporate Dem either.

[Control-Z]

2. I believe we are talking about

midterm elections. The graph shows the difference between the 2008 presidential election and 2010 midterm. Hate Hillary all you want but don't let your hate get in the way of electing Democrats to Congress.

I'll leave it at that. It is far too late to discuss where else you are wrong.

[Exposethefrauds]

7. Even in the midterm Corporate Dems are not worth voting for

Corporate Dems need to be run out of the party just like the racists were run out in the 60's when they all became Republicans.
The Corporate and Conservative Democrats need to go where they belong the Republican Party with the TeaBaggers.

[joshcryer]

4. I think 90% of DU would vote against Clinton in the primary.

I think that 99% of DU would vote for Clinton in the general.

[joshcryer]

3. No shit.

And who is responsible for GOTV?

Activists.

Who are generally the biggest activists?

Liberals.

We dropped the ball.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Update: those figures are incorrect

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 07:35 AM - Edit history (1)

The OP implies there were a lot of Republican voters in 2010 who didn't vote at all in 2008. It says in 2010 the Democrats got 65% of Obama's 53.6%, plus 6% of McCain's 46.3%. That's a total of 37.6% of the 2008 voters. And the Republicans got 6% of Obama's 53.6%, plus 76% of McCain's 46.3% - a total of 38.4% of the 2008 voters.

But in the House races, Republicans got 44.8 million votes, and Democrats 39.0 million (the Senate votes were 32.7 million Republican, 29.1 million Democrat, but those aren't in all states, of course, so aren't so comparable - I presume the picture in the OP is about the House).

So, looking at people who voted in both elections, you'd have expected a close race, in terms of total votes, in 2010. If the Democratic figure of 37.6% translated to 39.0 million votes, you'd expect 38.4% to translate to about 39.8 million votes.

And that means there were nearly 5 million more votes for Republicans that the OP picture would predict - among people who voted in 2010 but not 2008, Republicans must have beaten Democrats by about 5 million (or a lot more 2008 Obama voters died before 2010, and so couldn't be captured by the survey - but that's unlikely, since McCain did better among the elderly). Which seems pretty unlikely to me, so I wonder how accurate the OP figures are.

Update: we can also look up the numbers who voted for Obama and McCain, and work from that.
Obama: 69.5 million
McCain: 59.9 million

If 65% of Obama 2008 voters had voted for a Democrat in 2010, they'd have got 45.2 million voters from that (plus 3.6 million from 6% of McCain's 59.9 million, for a total of 48.8 million - plus a few new voters). Similarly, Republicans would have got 76% of 59.9 million plus 6% of 69.5 million - 49.7 million in total, plus a few new voters. Simply, the survey claim that "65% of 2008 Obama voters voted for Democrats in 2010" is impossible.

[Scuba]

6. Your premise that policy positions and voter turnout are unrelated is flawed.