If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Journal)   Republicans have an obvious problem with young voters, but Democrats have an even bigger problem with young NON-voters, which helps explain why the GOP may be able to get away with not fixing anything, and still have a good 2014   (nationaljournal.com) divider line 47
    More: Interesting, GOP, Democrats, problem with young, midterm elections, voters, Democratic Coalition, focus groups, College Republicans  
•       •       •

757 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jun 2013 at 11:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-07 10:27:51 AM  
As long as the data remains unskewed, the GOP will be sitting pretty in 2014.
 
2013-06-07 10:29:10 AM  
Didn't they bank on young people not voting in 2008 and 2012?
 
2013-06-07 10:34:54 AM  
Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.

The democrats aren't going to lose any of their safe urban seats, but they do stand to lose a number in more rural areas.  At the state level, it's already happening (see recall petitions in Colorado).
 
2013-06-07 10:36:12 AM  

dittybopper: Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.

The democrats aren't going to lose any of their safe urban seats, but they do stand to lose a number in more rural areas.  At the state level, it's already happening (see recall petitions in Colorado).


I think gun control has passed peak hysteria.
 
2013-06-07 10:42:47 AM  
TFA is basically right. I'll be quite surprised if the GOP loses any seats in 2014.
 
2013-06-07 10:51:32 AM  
 
2013-06-07 10:52:39 AM  
Which is why Republicans hate "get out the vote" efforts.
 
2013-06-07 10:57:38 AM  

SilentStrider: Which is why Republicans hate "get out the vote" efforts.


it's also why they don't want election day moved to a weekend or made a national holiday. they are the party of elites. the fewer people vote, the better.
 
2013-06-07 11:24:47 AM  

FlashHarry: SilentStrider: Which is why Republicans hate "get out the vote" efforts.

it's also why they don't want election day moved to a weekend or made a national holiday. they are the party of elites. the fewer people vote, the better.


The two biggest enemies of conservative politicians have been reality and democracy for millennia.
 
2013-06-07 11:31:07 AM  
SO what I'm reading tells me that if the folks behind Obama's ninja-like micro targetted GOTV machinery from the last election can be pressed into service for the Midterms the Dems could swamp the GOP and pull a suprise takeover of both Houses?

Sounds like a plan to me

/We are enow yet living in the field

To smother up the GOP in our throngs,

If any order might be thought upon.
 
2013-06-07 11:33:36 AM  
...Not fixing...

I'm going to stop you right there, headline.  Breaking isn't the same as not fixing.
 
2013-06-07 11:46:48 AM  
The great post-2010 Census Gerrymander is still in effect. The GOP will make some gains in the House and Senate. This article is an early attempt to try and bring disaffected youth back to the fold. It won't happen without real policies being pursued. Since the GOP is going to remain obstructionist, it will not help them long term.

After the 2020 census, the GOP will be totally farked because by then the Democrats will be in control of many more swing states than 3 years ago (boomer population way down, minority population way up. Democrats will lock down a serious majority for decades to come.
 
2013-06-07 11:56:15 AM  

Kuta: The great post-2010 Census Gerrymander is still in effect. The GOP will make some gains in the House and Senate. This article is an early attempt to try and bring disaffected youth back to the fold. It won't happen without real policies being pursued. Since the GOP is going to remain obstructionist, it will not help them long term.

After the 2020 census, the GOP will be totally farked because by then the Democrats will be in control of many more swing states than 3 years ago (boomer population way down, minority population way up. Democrats will lock down a serious majority for decades to come.


The funny thing is, with the resulting gridlock from likely continued GOP control of the House, the hyperpartisanship that is alienating so many young/female/minority voters will ensure that the GOP withers away after the Boomers are no longer such a huge voting bloc.
 
2013-06-07 12:01:29 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Kuta: The great post-2010 Census Gerrymander is still in effect. The GOP will make some gains in the House and Senate. This article is an early attempt to try and bring disaffected youth back to the fold. It won't happen without real policies being pursued. Since the GOP is going to remain obstructionist, it will not help them long term.

After the 2020 census, the GOP will be totally farked because by then the Democrats will be in control of many more swing states than 3 years ago (boomer population way down, minority population way up. Democrats will lock down a serious majority for decades to come.

The funny thing is, with the resulting gridlock from likely continued GOP control of the House, the hyperpartisanship that is alienating so many young/female/minority voters will ensure that the GOP withers away after the Boomers are no longer such a huge voting bloc.


Meanwhile the Tea Party conservative core wanting lower taxes and debt reduction will see higher taxes, lower deficits and improved economy.
 
2013-06-07 12:03:49 PM  

92myrtle: their Math was even better in '12 and they self-immolated their way into D gains.


Their math in terms of what seats were available was better, but the composition of the electorate is certainly not.
 
2013-06-07 12:07:05 PM  

DamnYankees: TFA is basically right. I'll be quite surprised if the GOP loses any seats in 2014.

This. The hardest thing that politically aware people have to face is how many people there are that have absolutely no fricking clue about what they are voting for and don/t really care. Huge swaths of people figure that someone smart will figure it out no matter what they do.

They learned somehow somewhere long ago that Republicans are tough on crime and tough on terrorists and won't come take their money or guns and that's that. Nothing else matters.
 
2013-06-07 12:08:23 PM  

92myrtle: Kuta: The great post-2010 Census Gerrymander is still in effect. The GOP will make some gains in the House and Senate. This article is an early attempt to try and bring disaffected youth back to the fold. It won't happen without real policies being pursued. Since the GOP is going to remain obstructionist, it will not help them long term.

After the 2020 census, the GOP will be totally farked because by then the Democrats will be in control of many more swing states than 3 years ago (boomer population way down, minority population way up. Democrats will lock down a serious majority for decades to come.

Senate isn't affected by gerrymandering.  Just the House.

Now, the math puts the GOP in better position to pick up some Senate seats, but their Math was even better in '12 and they self-immolated their way into D gains.  Right now they can make gains, but flipping the chamber is relatively remote.  We've already got one Akin in the race in Iowa in Steve King likely to clear the GOP field...if he wins the primary that's an instant Dem hold.  All it takes is another 1-2 crazies to fark things up and they fight to a draw.  There aren't fewer or better-behaved crazies than last time, so chances are there are going to be at least 2 self-destructos.


I don't think the House is dramatically going to shift.  GOP could pick up single-digits seats to offset some of their '12 losses.  Dems could pick up single-digits seats before hitting the gerrymandering brick wall.  It's mostly going to be more of the regional alignment...Teabagger '10 recruits hanging on in the north (esp. NY state) getting picked off, Dems holding on for dear life in the South getting picked off.  And California's new best-of elections setup now going through its second go-around with Dems better positioned to divide-and-conquer weaker GOP benches (i.e. preventing the backfires they had in '12 in a few districts where the general election field ended up Dem-on-Dem and GOP-on-GOP due to excessive field-spl ...


This.
 
Bf+
2013-06-07 12:12:48 PM  
Lemme guess... Both sides are teh bad?
 
2013-06-07 12:16:39 PM  
"The less people vote, the better our chances!"

The modern Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-06-07 12:17:46 PM  
Barring some unforseen event, 2014 is going to be a status-quo election, not a realignment.
 
2013-06-07 12:19:44 PM  

92myrtle: Chamber control is pretty much locked in place until 2022 when the next redistricting takes place and the GOP can no longer escape demographic shifts.


Gerrymandering's effect gets weaker as the decade goes on. Of course, the really corrupt majorities know this and go for a mid-decade redistricting, but for the most part.

The question I've wanted answered is what the tipping point is before gerrymandering can no longer protect a majority. Everybody talks about how to get rid of gerrymandering, but I think the more practical question is asking what its limits are before it's no longer effective. I mean... you can turn 49% of the vote into 51% of the seats rather easily, but nobody would seriously suggest that 1% of the vote could become 51% of the seats. There's a point somewhere in that range where one becomes the other.
 
2013-06-07 12:35:21 PM  

Gosling: 92myrtle: Chamber control is pretty much locked in place until 2022 when the next redistricting takes place and the GOP can no longer escape demographic shifts.

Gerrymandering's effect gets weaker as the decade goes on. Of course, the really corrupt majorities know this and go for a mid-decade redistricting, but for the most part.

The question I've wanted answered is what the tipping point is before gerrymandering can no longer protect a majority. Everybody talks about how to get rid of gerrymandering, but I think the more practical question is asking what its limits are before it's no longer effective. I mean... you can turn 49% of the vote into 51% of the seats rather easily, but nobody would seriously suggest that 1% of the vote could become 51% of the seats. There's a point somewhere in that range where one becomes the other.


In the last election the republicans got 33 more seats than the Dems with 1 million less total votes. It's a frighteningly effective way to distort the democratic process.
 
2013-06-07 12:36:06 PM  

Gosling: 92myrtle: Chamber control is pretty much locked in place until 2022 when the next redistricting takes place and the GOP can no longer escape demographic shifts.

Gerrymandering's effect gets weaker as the decade goes on. Of course, the really corrupt majorities know this and go for a mid-decade redistricting, but for the most part.

The question I've wanted answered is what the tipping point is before gerrymandering can no longer protect a majority. Everybody talks about how to get rid of gerrymandering, but I think the more practical question is asking what its limits are before it's no longer effective. I mean... you can turn 49% of the vote into 51% of the seats rather easily, but nobody would seriously suggest that 1% of the vote could become 51% of the seats. There's a point somewhere in that range where one becomes the other.


50% of the votes can get you 99% of the seats if you really knew exactly where all the voters are and had infinite amount of flexibility of how to draw the districts - you just make districts of 50%+some minimal amount of extra voters for you in most districts, and give away one district that is 100% opposition votes, but it is risky so more normally you make 55%-60% districts for yourself as much as possible to have some amount of swing or variation protected against, and then give the remainder up as 100% opposition votes, so if the total votes is even you can get about 80% of the seats safely, 40% of the votes and control of gerrymandering gives you about 60-70% of the seats, and you can still get 50% of the seats with about 30% of the votes.

/above approximate and assuming a two party split, somewhere like the UK with the voters split between three parties it is much more complicated, and obviously the PR type systems in much of Europe largely side step the issue
 
2013-06-07 12:41:42 PM  

92myrtle: Kuta: The great post-2010 Census Gerrymander is still in effect. The GOP will make some gains in the House and Senate. This article is an early attempt to try and bring disaffected youth back to the fold. It won't happen without real policies being pursued. Since the GOP is going to remain obstructionist, it will not help them long term.

After the 2020 census, the GOP will be totally farked because by then the Democrats will be in control of many more swing states than 3 years ago (boomer population way down, minority population way up. Democrats will lock down a serious majority for decades to come.

Senate isn't affected by gerrymandering.  Just the House.

Now, the math puts the GOP in better position to pick up some Senate seats, but their Math was even better in '12 and they self-immolated their way into D gains.  Right now they can make gains, but flipping the chamber is relatively remote.  We've already got one Akin in the race in Iowa in Steve King likely to clear the GOP field...if he wins the primary that's an instant Dem hold.  All it takes is another 1-2 crazies to fark things up and they fight to a draw.  There aren't fewer or better-behaved crazies than last time, so chances are there are going to be at least 2 self-destructos.


I don't think the House is dramatically going to shift.  GOP could pick up single-digits seats to offset some of their '12 losses.  Dems could pick up single-digits seats before hitting the gerrymandering brick wall.  It's mostly going to be more of the regional alignment...Teabagger '10 recruits hanging on in the north (esp. NY state) getting picked off, Dems holding on for dear life in the South getting picked off.  And California's new best-of elections setup now going through its second go-around with Dems better positioned to divide-and-conquer weaker GOP benches (i.e. preventing the backfires they had in '12 in a few districts where the general election field ended up Dem-on-Dem and GOP-on-GOP due to excessive field-spl ...


the 2012 FAIL in terms of the Senate was as epic as it seems to be unnoticed.    the GOp was defending just 10 seats and the dems had to hold 23 just to maintain the Senate's current balance, the first time since 1964 they had to hold that many seats.  Not only did they NOT lose control of the Senate, but they GAINED a net of two seats overall and lost only one seat formerly held by a retiring Dem:  Ben Nelson of fricking NEBRASKA

That, in short,  was a colossal ass-kicking handed to the GOP that was more stunning than even Obama's landslide win.
 
2013-06-07 12:45:22 PM  
There are always plenty if idiots lining up to vote Republican. They'll do fine.
 
2013-06-07 12:45:23 PM  
Young people are Hard to reach through the advertizing and BS and REALLY HARD to TRAIN.  I've voted in every election I could vote in, but my Mom was a good role model for that.  Kids have to understand that if you don't vote, you don't count and can't biatch.  It's way more satisfying to whine than to stand in line and do your civic duty, but you can't do one without the other.
 
2013-06-07 01:16:05 PM  

Gosling: 92myrtle: Chamber control is pretty much locked in place until 2022 when the next redistricting takes place and the GOP can no longer escape demographic shifts.

Gerrymandering's effect gets weaker as the decade goes on. Of course, the really corrupt majorities know this and go for a mid-decade redistricting, but for the most part.

The question I've wanted answered is what the tipping point is before gerrymandering can no longer protect a majority. Everybody talks about how to get rid of gerrymandering, but I think the more practical question is asking what its limits are before it's no longer effective. I mean... you can turn 49% of the vote into 51% of the seats rather easily, but nobody would seriously suggest that 1% of the vote could become 51% of the seats. There's a point somewhere in that range where one becomes the other.


It depends on how extreme you let me gerrymander. Are you allowing me to not attempt to keep votes equal in the areas i define?
 
2013-06-07 01:16:46 PM  
we can always hope that a few republican hopefuls or even republican incumbents will spout some todd akin-worthy commentary on rape or abortion and self-destruct their campaigns in the process.

i know a few people i work with who just refuse to vote.  they think all politicians are greedy liars and they feel that voting is an implicit endorsement of a corrupt system.  i can't blame them, really.
 
2013-06-07 01:19:15 PM  
I'm still technically a registered Republican, because I love getting all the surveys from groups like "The Freedom for America Foundation". I'm the statistical outlier when they do surveys.

"Do you agree with President Obama's plan to strip medical care from our wounded heroes?"
"YES. THROW ROCKS AT VETERANS."
 
2013-06-07 01:29:02 PM  

snowshovel: It depends on how extreme you let me gerrymander. Are you allowing me to not attempt to keep votes equal in the areas i define?


That I won't do. Districts have to be of equal population. The courts jump on you these days for being, like, 20 votes apart in districts with 800,000 people.
 
2013-06-07 01:32:34 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.

The democrats aren't going to lose any of their safe urban seats, but they do stand to lose a number in more rural areas.  At the state level, it's already happening (see recall petitions in Colorado).


Yes, by all means let's celebrate how undemocratic our representative government is since most Americans clearly want some sort of gun-control legislation like universal background checks.

From a purely objective standpoint your argument is also stupid.  "Oh noes!  Fanatical gun fetishists are going to vote based on the thing they only vote on anyways!"  It's not like these clowns were suddenly moved to action.  They've been reliable, one-issue voters for decades.
 
2013-06-07 01:34:17 PM  
Gosling:
The question I've wanted answered is what the tipping point is before gerrymandering can no longer protect a majority. Everybody talks about how to get rid of gerrymandering, but I think the more practical question is asking what its limits are before it's no longer effective. I mean... you can turn 49% of the vote into 51% of the seats rather easily, but nobody would seriously suggest that 1% of the vote could become 51% of the seats. There's a point somewhere in that range where one becomes the other.

Looking at several states where Obama won but the GOP got the majority of the House seats it looks like effective gerrymandering can be worth around a 10% swing in the electorate, so once the tide turns more than about 45:55 against you you're toast.

The GOP might also end up victims of their own success. They have gerrymandered the (D) Reps in their states into "Safe (D)" seats in order to create "Lean (R)" districts to capture a majority of the House  for the GOP. Unfortunately for them this puts them on the defense in seats that will get increasingly vulnerable as demographics change without giving them any feasible room to attack the Safe (D) seats in return. They also have an increasingly conservative base to worry about, who turn off a lot of the "Lean (R)" people in the gerrymandered districts.
 
2013-06-07 01:48:21 PM  

Blathering Idjut: dittybopper: Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.

The democrats aren't going to lose any of their safe urban seats, but they do stand to lose a number in more rural areas.  At the state level, it's already happening (see recall petitions in Colorado).

Yes, by all means let's celebrate how undemocratic our representative government is since most Americans clearly want some sort of gun-control legislation like universal background checks.

From a purely objective standpoint your argument is also stupid.  "Oh noes!  Fanatical gun fetishists are going to vote based on the thing they only vote on anyways!"  It's not like these clowns were suddenly moved to action.  They've been reliable, one-issue voters for decades.


There's a reason I have dittybopper tagged as "likes to threaten armed revolt."  He's a gun fetishist himself and will gladly tell you that the government should be violently overthrown if you get him riled up enough.
 
2013-06-07 01:50:50 PM  

Gosling: snowshovel: It depends on how extreme you let me gerrymander. Are you allowing me to not attempt to keep votes equal in the areas i define?

That I won't do. Districts have to be of equal population. The courts jump on you these days for being, like, 20 votes apart in districts with 800,000 people.


I've wondered about that but have never gotten around to looking it up.  If districts really have to be of equal population, then I think we can safely say that demographic changes alone will kill the GOP eventually.
 
2013-06-07 02:05:44 PM  

The Name: Gosling: snowshovel: It depends on how extreme you let me gerrymander. Are you allowing me to not attempt to keep votes equal in the areas i define?

That I won't do. Districts have to be of equal population. The courts jump on you these days for being, like, 20 votes apart in districts with 800,000 people.

I've wondered about that but have never gotten around to looking it up.  If districts really have to be of equal population, then I think we can safely say that demographic changes alone will kill the GOP eventually.


In the meantime they have a big effect. For example:

Virginia: Obama 51:Romney 47 - The GOP picked up 72% of the House Seats
Pennsylvania: Obama 52, Romney 47 - The GOP Picked up 72% of the House seats.
 
2013-06-07 02:07:44 PM  

The Name: If districts really have to be of equal population, then I think we can safely say that demographic changes alone will kill the GOP eventually.


Well, in the long run, yes. But the short run matters. Think about it - the 2010 redistricting is probably going to waste a good decades worth of governance. That's important.
 
2013-06-07 02:12:20 PM  

DamnYankees: TFA is basically right. I'll be quite surprised if the GOP loses any seats in 2014.


With only three exceptions since the Civil War, the party holding the White House has always lost seats in the House of Representatives in midterm elections. One of those exceptions was 1934, when the Democrats gained seats in the middle of Roosevelt's first term. One was 1998, when the Democrats gained seats in Clinton's 2nd term. One was 2002, when the Republicans gained seats in Bush's first term.1

Of those three, at least two can be attributed to unique historical circumstances. 1934 was all about the Great Depression. 2002 was the first midterm following 9/11. Only 1998 seems a little hard to explain, but really, impeachment was on everyone's tongue in 1998 even though technically it hadn't happened yet. If we understand 1998 as a pre-referendum on impeachment,  then it too is explainable by a unique historical circumstance.

Lichtman's algorithm makes presidential elections pretty predictable. History makes midterm House elections pretty predictable. House elections in presidential election years can probably tend to trend with who wins the White House. If true, then Lichtman's algorithm indirectly has predictive value for those as well.

Only the Senate remains a mystery to me. I've very little idea how to predict which party will gain or lose seats in most Senate elections. No doubt they go with the winning party in tidal wave election years. But that's obvious, and only predicts a handful of already predictable election years.

So barring some unique historical event on par with the Great Depression, impeachment, or 9/11, we can confidently predict the Republicans will gain House seats in 2002. We don't know yet how many. But almost regardless of how they conduct themselves, unless impeachment talk gets really serious, they're going to gain some.

Unless someone else has a good theory for predicting party gains in Senate election years, I can't speak to that.

1 The Republicans gained absolute seats in Theodore Roosevelt's first term, but the House had changed in size in the intervening two years. Adjusted proportionally, the Republicans lost seats that year..
 
2013-06-07 02:20:27 PM  

bugontherug: Unless someone else has a good theory for predicting party gains in Senate election years, I can't speak to that.


I think the Senate breakdown has much more to do with individual candidates and matchups; the 2006 Senatorial gains for the Democrats wouldn't have materialized without decent candidates to run against guys like George Allen. On the flip side, the sub-par Republican Senatorial gains in 2010 and 2012 can be almost directly attributed to the absence of quality candidates.
 
2013-06-07 02:38:32 PM  

qorkfiend: bugontherug: Unless someone else has a good theory for predicting party gains in Senate election years, I can't speak to that.

I think the Senate breakdown has much more to do with individual candidates and matchups; the 2006 Senatorial gains for the Democrats wouldn't have materialized without decent candidates to run against guys like George Allen. On the flip side, the sub-par Republican Senatorial gains in 2010 and 2012 can be almost directly attributed to the absence of quality candidates.


Well, and that in turn was caused in part by Tea Party extremism.
 
2013-06-07 03:10:48 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.


Depends how it's presented.  The actual bill that got as far as a vote was just to expand background checks, which, while the NRA opposes it, basically every actual non-lobbyist person thinks it's a good idea.

It's a very solid illustration of the GOP being obstructionist just to be obstructionist even when there's no actual point in contention, and of them being slave to lobby groups buying them off, so actually not terribly hard to leverage against them even in rural districts.
 
2013-06-07 03:35:38 PM  

dittybopper: Oh, I think they'll have a very good 2014, because of the attempts at gun control.

The democrats aren't going to lose any of their safe urban seats, but they do stand to lose a number in more rural areas.  At the state level, it's already happening (see recall petitions in Colorado).


Also: Student Loans...do they really want to fark that chicken too?
 
2013-06-07 04:52:49 PM  
James! * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-06-07 10:29:10 AM Didn't they bank on young people not voting in 2008 and 2012?
=======================================================

Yes.

They didn't take the senate because they ran complete extremist idiots. But they didn't relent on the House because young people didn't bother to show up to vote (there's also gerrymandering, but, discussing that would just make me angry)
 
2013-06-07 05:22:39 PM  
Discouraging people from voting has always been the GOPs #1 goal.

It is for this reason that Clinton's second term (and now Obama's) is a GOP-driven scandal-fest.

The GOP knows that their voters (age 45+) are dying off, and they aren't winning any new voters... so that really only leaves one solution:

Poison the well in hopes that it will reduce voter turnout in the next election.

Its pretty sad, but if history is any indication, rather effective.
 
2013-06-07 05:38:31 PM  
I can understand why. What will any of the current crop of politicians provide to a young voter? A college student nowadays sees nothing but increasing tuition for increasingly shiatty classes with shiattier job prospects once they get their degree. They were told growing up that they had better go to college and get a degree if they don't want to be stuck flipping burgers until they're 70.  Now they're graduating and all of the good paying jobs are either being shipped overseas or are being hung onto by boomers who forgot to save for retirement, and if they dare to point out how shiatty this situation is they're told to stop being so entitled. Then they look at the politicians asking for their vote and see nary a one actually addressing these issues, so why bother?
 
2013-06-07 07:47:52 PM  

xalres: I can understand why. What will any of the current crop of politicians provide to a young voter? A college student nowadays sees nothing but increasing tuition for increasingly shiatty classes with shiattier job prospects once they get their degree. They were told growing up that they had better go to college and get a degree if they don't want to be stuck flipping burgers until they're 70.  Now they're graduating and all of the good paying jobs are either being shipped overseas or are being hung onto by boomers who forgot to save for retirement, and if they dare to point out how shiatty this situation is they're told to stop being so entitled. Then they look at the politicians asking for their vote and see nary a one actually addressing these issues, so why bother?


What you're describing is only one side of the equation.  Put yourself in the place of a Democratic lawmaker not addressing these issues (Republicans, let's face it, don't care and never will).  Are you going to champion the interests of those demographics who always get out to vote and pay some modicum of attention to politics (e.g. 45+ year old white suburbanites)?  Or are you going to focus on those demographics that vote only in presidential elections and even then have to be practically dragged to the polls by multi-million-dollar GOTV efforts (e.g. young "voters")?

You have little to gain electorally by appealing to an electorate that's proven time and time again to be incredibly unreliable, and everything to gain by appealing to those people who vote in every election, local, national and primary.
 
2013-06-08 12:43:42 AM  
plewis
if you don't vote, you don't count and can't biatch.

The most important aspect of voting is agreeing to abide by the results. If you DO vote you can't complain.


enderthexenocide
i know a few people i work with who just refuse to vote. they think all politicians are greedy liars and they feel that voting is an implicit endorsement of a corrupt system. i can't blame them, really.

A good start but the only real vote against a system is to organize to create a better one.


The Name
You have little to gain electorally by appealing to an electorate that's proven time and time again to be incredibly unreliable, and everything to gain by appealing to those people who vote in every election, local, national and primary.

We'll never know, since the Democratic Party is run by power-serving technocrats who operate on that kind of logic. You present a convenient excuse and nothing more.
 
2013-06-08 08:17:24 AM  
Said it before and I'll say it again.

Computer generated districts. Use Iowa as your pilot program.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report