Republican voter turnout plummets due to disappointment with weak candidates

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Feb 09, 2012 2:34 AM GMT
    Turnout is way down in most recent primaries, by as much as half in some states. In Nevada, less than 8% of registered Republicans bothered to show up. Maybe because they're seriously unimpressed with their poor choices?


    (CNN) -- Beneath Rick Santorum's stunning three-state sweep on Tuesday stands another stubborn sign of dissatisfaction with the status quo: Republican turnout is down.

    I'm talking embarrassingly, disturbingly, hey-don't-you-know-it's-an-election-year bad. It is a sign of a serious enthusiasm gap among the rank and file, and a particularly bad omen for Mitt Romney and the GOP in the general election.

    Here's the tale of the tape, state by state, beginning with Tuesday night: Minnesota had just more than 47,000 people turn out for its caucuses this year -- four years ago it was nearly 63,000 -- and Romney came in first, not a distant third as he did Tuesday night. In Colorado, more than 70,000 people turned out for its caucus in 2008 -- but in 2012 it was 65,000. And Missouri -- even making a generous discount for the fact that this was an entirely symbolic contest -- had 232,000 people turn out, less than half the number who did four years ago.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/opinion/avlon-gop-turnout-down/index.html

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/gop-primary-turnout-mitt-romney-enthusiasm-gap-/1?csp=34news
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Feb 09, 2012 2:56 AM GMT
    Gingrich has too much baggage. Santorum is emphasizing social conservatism when voters care more about the economy and jobs. Ron Paul is targeted by those who don't like his hands off approach regarding the Middle East conflict, and no one but Romney's base trust him—he flip-flops, they know he'll say anything to get their vote, and for conservatives who hold a negative view of Wall St., Mitt is seen as someone who would restore the conditions that led to this mess.

    NewImage14.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 3:11 AM GMT
    But all the fundies make sure they show up, hence the santorum surge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 4:40 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBut all the fundies make sure they show up, hence the santorum surge.


    But they've stayed home where Romney won, suggesting an unwillingness to support him.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Feb 09, 2012 4:47 AM GMT
    I wouldn't read too much into the meaning behind low voter turnout. I just don't think Americans are all THAT engaged yet in the election. I expect voter turnout will increase as the race heats up in March.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 5:10 AM GMT
    There has not been a republican
    Party for quit some time. Its only real
    Support is the left that needs it to have something to bitch about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 6:11 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidThere has not been a republican
    Party for quit some time. Its only real
    Support is the left that needs it to have something to bitch about.


    Eisenhower would be the last REAL Republican in my eyes. The rest since Ike would make Lincoln spit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 7:16 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI wouldn't read too much into the meaning behind low voter turnout. I just don't think Americans are all THAT engaged yet in the election. I expect voter turnout will increase as the race heats up in March.


    It is early yet, but given the polling so far on the subject, party members seem to be genuinely disenchanted with the candidates so far.

    I think Mocktwinkie hit the nail on the head in terms of Santorum's recent success. He is the only one who has truly dedicated supporters. Plus, really, he's the only Republican candidate with a consistent message and a real grassroots network, if only because grassroots is all his national campaign really has...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 7:28 AM GMT
    north_runner said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI wouldn't read too much into the meaning behind low voter turnout. I just don't think Americans are all THAT engaged yet in the election. I expect voter turnout will increase as the race heats up in March.


    It is early yet, but given the polling so far on the subject, party members seem to be genuinely disenchanted with the candidates so far.

    I think Mocktwinkie hit the nail on the head in terms of Santorum's recent success. He is the only one who has truly dedicated supporters. Plus, really, he's the only Republican candidate with a consistent message and a real grassroots network, if only because grassroots is all his national campaign really has...


    Correction: RON PAUL is the only candidate with truly dedicated supporters. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a consistent message (30 years worth) and a strong support from grassroots, including the Tea Party, independents, young college students (including former Obama '08 supporters), and members of both major political parties.

    Santorum is clue-less in regards to the economy, the monetary system, and foreign affairs, just to name a few. He is just like the others with big government, massive spending, and endless undeclared wars. His platform is mainly social issues, from abortion and particularly his strong stance against gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 7:47 AM GMT
    Good point. But Paul's best showing so far has been second.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 7:56 AM GMT
    This is true, but we all know that it's the delegates that count, not popular vote. Last night for example, was just a beauty pageant as Missouri didn't even assign delegates (and won't until next month), and the other states were all non-binding delegates, so they can always change their minds later.

    Ron Paul's campaign, while a bit on the low-key side, is playing very tactically; their goal is to rack up as many delegates as they can to take to the Convention. He has limited finances (as he receives virtually no money from major corporations and zero funds from lobbyists), so he isn't spending a terrible amount of time campaigning in winner-takes-all states (i.e. like in Florida couple weeks back). It's still very early in the race, 42 more states to go...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 8:32 AM GMT
    I think it would be interesting to see Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich in a debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2012 8:50 AM GMT
    Actually, I would honestly like to see Ron Paul in a debate with Obama. Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning, but he'd (in the words of SNL) stick to his weird ol' guns and really call Obama out over things liberals and conservatives are disappointed about in him. (NDAA, campaign finance, deficit etc) It'd be really awesome to see that discussion. But I do not think it will happen.