The 2/3 of the electorate stayed home meme

[georgephillip]

Low voter turnout? Not for the GOP. It's not Republicans freaking fault that you liberals couldn't mobilize your base.

Republicans voted. Tea Party patriots voted and Conservatives voted in droves.

Dems have only themselves to blame if their party faithful didn't want to vote.

Would you agree racist voters are easier to turn out with a "black" president in the White House?

 

[toxicmedia]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

 

[Zander]

In the 2012 election - 42% of the electorate stayed home.....

 

[georgephillip]

If your wonderful Democrats felt they had something to vote for, they would have showed up.

Full Disclosure: I voted for more Republicans than Democrats last Tuesday, but only because there were no third party candidates appearing on my ballot.

Your analysis of why Democrats didn't turn out is one I've heard often on left-wing radio over the past five days. Hard core conservative vote in mid-terms, and their counterparts on the left don't. Probably because Democrats have run as Republican-lite since the Clinton era, and unless there is a black or woman running for the White House, progressives can't stomach voting for eternal war abroad, endless debt and austerity at home, or more mindless worship of the richest 1% instead of questioning why Democrats AND Republicans in DC vote the way they do. Marx was wrong about many things, but not about the role money has played throughout history.

 

[tinydancer]

Low voter turnout? Not for the GOP. It's not Republicans freaking fault that you liberals couldn't mobilize your base.

Republicans voted. Tea Party patriots voted and Conservatives voted in droves.

Dems have only themselves to blame if their party faithful didn't want to vote.

Would you agree racist voters are easier to turn out with a "black" president in the White House?

You have two elections running where this black President was elected handily.

Blacks are a miniscule part of the vote. 12% of the population is black. I'll have to find out what the voting percentage they are but nonetheless african americans are only 12%

Ergo the white population of America has elected a black President twice.

How can they all be racist now?

 

[georgephillip]

So why couldn't the Dems energize their voters and get them out?

I guess they couldn't put enough distance between themselves and Obama?
"At the same time, Democrats failed to provide a coherent reason to vote for them, running away from the president's record, which helped the GOP's narrative.

"Although a couple of Democratic candidates ran smart campaigns, advocating for working families and their issues, most did not.

"Running for Senate reelection, Colorado's Mark Udall seemed to exclusively focus on reproductive rights, specifically abortion and birth control, ignoring all other issues, as a way to woo women voters.

"Iowa's Bruce Braley mocked the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, as a 'farmer who never went to law school,' while his opponent, Joni Ernst, a veteran and farmer who grew up with 'one pair of shoes,' connected to voters.

"But where candidates offered a spirited campaign based on working family issues and values of economic fairness and democratic rights, as in Minnesota's Senate and governor's races or Michigan's Senate race, they saw success."
Democrats depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements as Republicans, hence voters get a "choice" between Republican or Republican-lite. In midterms, that isn't enough to motivate the Democrat base.
Midterms 2014 high anxiety and low turnout peoplesworld

 

[tinydancer]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

What did Democrats offer their voters? What did Democrats campaign on?

Certainly the millions of dollars Harry Reid wasted demonizing the Koch Bros didn't work.

And many candidates were pissed off that the money wasn't more wisely spent on a positive campaign than the "demonization" tactic.

How about class warfare? Well that wasn't going to work for the Dems considering that the D's economic policies benefitted Wall Street and not the 99%ers.

Check the exit interviews. Middle class has not been feeling the warm and fuzzy that Wall Street has.

Okey dokey. Moving along to the idiotic War on Women. Well two prominent candidates Senator Uterus and Abortion Barbie couldn't win over women with this singular issue.

Moving along to the racializaton of electoral politics. Didn't mobilize the base at all on that one. In fact I bet there was more than one in the base just tired of the bullshit of "America is racist" when you have a two term black President that whites elected.

Just face it. Dems ran on nothing but old tired bullshit.

 

[georgephillip]

Ergo the white population of America has elected a black President twice.

How can they all be racist now?

The white, Asian, Hispanic, and black population of America elected a black president twice AND failed to turn out twice when Obama was not on the ballot.

Race provides a powerful incentive to vote. If 11 of every 100 US voters are black, I wouldn't be surprised if 11 out of every conservative voters are racist. The US doesn't make voting particularly easy, especially for workers, and changing that might change turn out levels across the board.

Bernie Sanders is planning to introduce legislation to make Election Day in the US a national holiday.

Maybe that would help?

8220 An international embarrassment 8221 Bernie Sanders decries low turnout wants to make Election Day a national holiday - Salon.com

Or Democrats could get some guts and start putting Big Change in play in every election: Free higher education, for starters?

 

[Zander]

Democrat Platform 2016: Vote for us. We gonna give you some Free shit!! Then we have some more FREEEEEE SHIT!!! Let the rich pay!

Yeah, that's a winner.......

 

[georgephillip]

"The right to education is a fundamental human right. Every individual, irrespective of race, gender, nationality, ethnic or social origin, religion or political preference, age or disability, is entitled to a free elementary education. This right is explicitly stated in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948:

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. …" (Article 26)
Naturally, some will argue it's more important to increase the number of billionaires (and other parasites)
Education

 

[toxicmedia]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

What did Democrats offer their voters? What did Democrats campaign on?

Certainly the millions of dollars Harry Reid wasted demonizing the Koch Bros didn't work.

And many candidates were pissed off that the money wasn't more wisely spent on a positive campaign than the "demonization" tactic.

How about class warfare? Well that wasn't going to work for the Dems considering that the D's economic policies benefitted Wall Street and not the 99%ers.

Check the exit interviews. Middle class has not been feeling the warm and fuzzy that Wall Street has.

Okey dokey. Moving along to the idiotic War on Women. Well two prominent candidates Senator Uterus and Abortion Barbie couldn't win over women with this singular issue.

Moving along to the racializaton of electoral politics. Didn't mobilize the base at all on that one. In fact I bet there was more than one in the base just tired of the bullshit of "America is racist" when you have a two term black President that whites elected.

Just face it. Dems ran on nothing but old tired bullshit.

But you said the entire "2/3" stayed home is not supported by actual data, and it is supported by the article you posted.

Voter turnout was down, and that always favors the party out of power, except for 3 midterms since 1840. I haven't heard anyone say the election was not "legitimate." Until now, and that sounds like the kind of crap Rush would shovel. What I have heard is Obama blaming people for not coming out to vote for him, which seems childish when that's what always happens in these situations.

Middle class left leaning voters don't care about Harry Reid or the Koch Brothers.

They didn't show up because they don't care. You've fallen for the false meme that the Democrats are done because of Obama. Those same people saying that predicted Romney by a land slide.

 

[tinydancer]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

What did Democrats offer their voters? What did Democrats campaign on?

Certainly the millions of dollars Harry Reid wasted demonizing the Koch Bros didn't work.

And many candidates were pissed off that the money wasn't more wisely spent on a positive campaign than the "demonization" tactic.

How about class warfare? Well that wasn't going to work for the Dems considering that the D's economic policies benefitted Wall Street and not the 99%ers.

Check the exit interviews. Middle class has not been feeling the warm and fuzzy that Wall Street has.

Okey dokey. Moving along to the idiotic War on Women. Well two prominent candidates Senator Uterus and Abortion Barbie couldn't win over women with this singular issue.

Moving along to the racializaton of electoral politics. Didn't mobilize the base at all on that one. In fact I bet there was more than one in the base just tired of the bullshit of "America is racist" when you have a two term black President that whites elected.

Just face it. Dems ran on nothing but old tired bullshit.

But you said the entire "2/3" stayed home is not supported by actual data, and it is supported by the article you posted.

Voter turnout was down, and that always favors the party out of power, except for 3 midterms since 1840. I haven't heard anyone say the election was not "legitimate." Until now, and that sounds like the kind of crap Rush would shovel. What I have heard is Obama blaming people for not coming out to vote for him, which seems childish when that's what always happens in these situations.

Middle class left leaning voters don't care about Harry Reid or the Koch Brothers.

They didn't show up because they don't care. You've fallen for the false meme that the Democrats are done because of Obama. Those same people saying that predicted Romney by a land slide.

No party will ever be "done".

Democrat base didn't come out because their candidates couldn't run on a positive platform.

Harry Reid and the other power brokers in the Dems had their hearts set on a campaign that "demonized and racialized" platform.

Truly the Democrat candidates for the most part didn't stand a chance. Their election campaigns were hijacked by their own leaders. Including Obama.

 

[toxicmedia]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

What did Democrats offer their voters? What did Democrats campaign on?

Certainly the millions of dollars Harry Reid wasted demonizing the Koch Bros didn't work.

And many candidates were pissed off that the money wasn't more wisely spent on a positive campaign than the "demonization" tactic.

How about class warfare? Well that wasn't going to work for the Dems considering that the D's economic policies benefitted Wall Street and not the 99%ers.

Check the exit interviews. Middle class has not been feeling the warm and fuzzy that Wall Street has.

Okey dokey. Moving along to the idiotic War on Women. Well two prominent candidates Senator Uterus and Abortion Barbie couldn't win over women with this singular issue.

Moving along to the racializaton of electoral politics. Didn't mobilize the base at all on that one. In fact I bet there was more than one in the base just tired of the bullshit of "America is racist" when you have a two term black President that whites elected.

Just face it. Dems ran on nothing but old tired bullshit.

But you said the entire "2/3" stayed home is not supported by actual data, and it is supported by the article you posted.

Voter turnout was down, and that always favors the party out of power, except for 3 midterms since 1840. I haven't heard anyone say the election was not "legitimate." Until now, and that sounds like the kind of crap Rush would shovel. What I have heard is Obama blaming people for not coming out to vote for him, which seems childish when that's what always happens in these situations.

Middle class left leaning voters don't care about Harry Reid or the Koch Brothers.

They didn't show up because they don't care. You've fallen for the false meme that the Democrats are done because of Obama. Those same people saying that predicted Romney by a land slide.

No party will ever be "done".

Democrat base didn't come out because their candidates couldn't run on a positive platform.

Harry Reid and the other power brokers in the Dems had their hearts set on a campaign that "demonized and racialized" platform.

Truly the Democrat candidates for the most part didn't stand a chance. Their election campaigns were hijacked by their own leaders. Including Obama.

Voter turnout was down, and that always favors the party out of power, except for 3 midterms since 1840.

Middle class left leaning voters don't want to dwell on Harry Reid, or Obama's failures, and Obama was not on the ballot.

They didn't show up because they don't care.

The idea that lefties are thinking about what righty media tells you they're thinking is ridiculous. All that hype is for your benefit.

 

[blackhawk]

Lets just say for the sake of argument the two thirds number is accurate the lefts take seems to be if these two thirds had come out to vote they would have voted Democrat don't you think that is more than a bit of arrogant presumption?

 

[toxicmedia]

Lets just say for the sake of argument the two thirds number is accurate the lefts take seems to be if these two thirds had come out to vote they would have voted Democrat don't you think that is more than a bit of arrogant presumption?

If you read the PEW article the OP cited...it does support what you call an arrogant assumption. Give it a read, that question is directly answered

 

[Rozman]

Hey if Dems want to sit home and not vote and lose control of the Senate...
Hell I will take that every day and twice on Sunday.

If it's just to sideline that weasel Harry Reid for a few years...

Priceless.

 

[Plasmaball]

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

"An analysis of voter turnout supports Collins' assessment that the Democrats underutilized President Obama. U.S. News, for instance, reported that turnout for the 2014 midterm elections was only 36.5% of registered voters, down significantly from the 40.9% turnout in the 2010 midterm elections, another wave election in which the Tea Party powered a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives."
Democratic Operative This Was Not a Turnout Election... It Was a Wave Election

Look no matter how you libs use the data, Midterms elections always have less turnout than general elections.

I still don't recall any lib saying 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because election turnout was down!

nobody is saying it wasnt legit.

 

[blackhawk]

Lets just say for the sake of argument the two thirds number is accurate the lefts take seems to be if these two thirds had come out to vote they would have voted Democrat don't you think that is more than a bit of arrogant presumption?

If you read the PEW article the OP cited...it does support what you call an arrogant assumption. Give it a read, that question is directly answered

The article simply talks about why there is a drop off and why a sitting Presidents party usually loses seats it doesn't offer up any proof that I saw that the Presidents party would win if those people came out to vote. Getting people to come out and vote in the midterms and getting them to vote for your party if your the sitting President are very different things. The bottom line here is every time the party that is in power loses an election they want to try and down play it.

 

[Nyvin]

First off it's a lie.

Here's a sampling of voter turn out from some states

November 4 2014 General Election - Voter Turnout

Ohio voter turnout down but close to last time there was no Senate race in a gubernatorial year cleveland.com

Nevada General Election 2014 - Vote Turnout and Statistics

The entire "2/3" stayed home is a lie. It's not supported by actual data.

Liberals make up crap to further their agenda. Like there were three million homeless during Reagan's administration. Or the economy when Clinton was the "worst economy in 50 years."

They make up lies. The stupid buy them, but the intelligent know this game. Liberals lie because the truth never helps their agenda.

But, even at that, it's a red herring to argue voter turnout was down therefore the election was not "legitimate."

Turnout for midterms is always down from general elections

Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections but why Pew Research Center

But I don't recall liberals claiming the midterm of 2006 wasn't "legitimate" because turnout was down from the 2004 election when turnout had been high.

Mid terms are always lower.

Therefore it's a false meme. If Democrats didn't show up to vote it's because Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all.

If that wasn't true, they would have come out to vote.

You're just answering one meme with your own. But given the definition of the word "meme", you're just replacing one meme with another.

I'm not finding anything in your link that supports the idea that Democrats rejected Democrats as well and decided just not to vote at all. It sounds like people who would vote for the party in power just get lazy, and they're hard to mobilize.

I do find it noteworthy about the exceptions to the rule, FDR, Clinton, and Bush2.

Though political scientists long have noted the midterm dropoff, they don’t agree on precisely what it means. In an influential 1987 article, James E. Campbell theorized that “the surge of interest and information in presidential elections” typically works to the advantage of one party or the other; that party’s partisans become more likely to vote, while those of the disadvantaged party are more likely to stay home during presidential elections. Independents, “lacking a standing partisan commitment…should divide disproportionately in favor of the advantaged party.” Midterm elections lack that “wow” factor, according to Campbell, and turnout among both partisans and independents return to more normal levels and patterns.

A recent paper by Brown University researcher Brian Knight seeks to evaluate that surge-and-decline theory, as well as two competing explanations of why the president’s party nearly always loses seats at the midterms: a “presidential penalty,” or general preference among midterm voters for expressing dissatisfaction with the president’s performance or ensuring that his party doesn’t control all the levers of government, and recurring shifts in voter ideology between presidential and midterm elections. Knight concluded that while all three factors contribute to what he calls the “midterm gap,” the presidential penalty has the most impact.

In any event, if 2014 follows the trend Democrats are almost certain to lose seats in the House and Senate this November, and many pollsters predict as much. As Knight notes, since 1842 the President’s party has lost seats in 40 of 43 midterms — the exceptions being 1934, 1998 and 2002. (Whether Republicans will pick up enough Senate seats to take control of that chamber is a much closer question.) And as Campbell concluded in his paper, “For the congressional candidates of the president’s party, the return to normalcy at the midterm represents a loss.”

What did Democrats offer their voters? What did Democrats campaign on?

Certainly the millions of dollars Harry Reid wasted demonizing the Koch Bros didn't work.

And many candidates were pissed off that the money wasn't more wisely spent on a positive campaign than the "demonization" tactic.

How about class warfare? Well that wasn't going to work for the Dems considering that the D's economic policies benefitted Wall Street and not the 99%ers.

Check the exit interviews. Middle class has not been feeling the warm and fuzzy that Wall Street has.

Okey dokey. Moving along to the idiotic War on Women. Well two prominent candidates Senator Uterus and Abortion Barbie couldn't win over women with this singular issue.

Moving along to the racializaton of electoral politics. Didn't mobilize the base at all on that one. In fact I bet there was more than one in the base just tired of the bullshit of "America is racist" when you have a two term black President that whites elected.

Just face it. Dems ran on nothing but old tired bullshit.

But you said the entire "2/3" stayed home is not supported by actual data, and it is supported by the article you posted.

Voter turnout was down, and that always favors the party out of power, except for 3 midterms since 1840. I haven't heard anyone say the election was not "legitimate." Until now, and that sounds like the kind of crap Rush would shovel. What I have heard is Obama blaming people for not coming out to vote for him, which seems childish when that's what always happens in these situations.

Middle class left leaning voters don't care about Harry Reid or the Koch Brothers.

They didn't show up because they don't care. You've fallen for the false meme that the Democrats are done because of Obama. Those same people saying that predicted Romney by a land slide.

No party will ever be "done".

Democrat base didn't come out because their candidates couldn't run on a positive platform.

Harry Reid and the other power brokers in the Dems had their hearts set on a campaign that "demonized and racialized" platform.

Truly the Democrat candidates for the most part didn't stand a chance. Their election campaigns were hijacked by their own leaders. Including Obama.

I didn't realize Republican voters only make up 20% of the electorate....since you're saying "all" the people that sat out are democrats

 

[Zander]

Bottom line: The "2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote meme" is a sloppy attempt to create the idea that 36% in a midterm election is an abnormally low turnout when it isn't.

The reason Republicans won more votes in 2014 — is that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities and young people didn’t turn out to vote.

Obama and his media lapdogs are free to mislead and spin, but the people who count, VOTERS, already know the deal. They gave him a cold slap in the face.......