Lowest voter turnout in history? (voters, campaign, Democrats, Republicans)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone think we could make this argument? I believe that come fall, we will see one of the, if not the lowest voter turnout in the history of presidential elections.
Anyone think we could make this argument? I believe that come fall, we will see one of the, if not the lowest voter turnout in the history of presidential elections.
Not on the Democratic side - in fact, judging by the primary turnouts, I suspect just the opposite is true.
For the Republicans - yeah, turnout could be a big problem.
Anyone think we could make this argument? I believe that come fall, we will see one of the, if not the lowest voter turnout in the history of presidential elections.
Hey look, it's another person with no grip on reality. Quick--send him to Hillaryland!
if Senator Clinton somehow gets the nomination because of the DNC giving her the MI pledged delegates (I think there may be some way to semi-fairly dole out FL, even though I think it shouldn't be done), I will NOT vote. I say this as a citizen who has voted in every election, whether it be city, state, or national, for over twenty years.
If Senator Clinton somehow gets the nomination through superdelegates switching back to her, without the benefit of MI pledged delegates or FL delegates, I will most likely vote, leaning toward Clinton, but will take a closer look at McCain.
I don't think there will be low voter turnout...there may be record turnout with the Obama nuts showing up to vote for their "messiah," and everyone else showing up to make sure Obama doesn't get elected.
if Senator Clinton somehow gets the nomination because of the DNC giving her the MI pledged delegates (I think there may be some way to semi-fairly dole out FL, even though I think it shouldn't be done), I will NOT vote. I say this as a citizen who has voted in every election, whether it be city, state, or national, for over twenty years.
.
Why? Don't voters in Florida and Michigan deserve a voice in the nomination?
I think its because you know that FL and MI will go to Hillary.
Why? Don't voters in Florida and Michigan deserve a voice in the nomination?
I think its because you know that FL and MI will go to Hillary.
I'm disappointed for those voters in FL and MI. Especially in MI, it's unfortunate that they didn't have a voice in voting for Obama, so that's why I believe they should not be counted. Wouldn't you be mad if you were a voter in MI that wanted to vote for Obama and couldn't, and now all the Clinton votes were counted? If you would have read my post, you would see that I think there may be a way to "count" FL, even though I don't think it's completely fair, since the candidates agreed not to campaign there. The only reason I think there is a difference there is because both were actually on the ballot.
It has nothing to do with the fact that I support Senator Obama. As my post stated, if Senator Clinton gets nominated in what I consider to be a fair manner, most likely she will get my vote.
I'm not convinced that FL and/or MI would go to Clinton. If logistics and money weren't the issues, I'd be in favor of a re-vote in both of these states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
