Midterm voter turnout was the lowest in 72 years

[240 is Back]

In his post-election press conference, President Obama mentioned in his opening remarks, “to everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”

Republicans were furious. By noting that two-thirds of the public didn’t bother to show up for the midterm elections, the president was subtly suggesting the Republicans’ victories were less impressive.

The trouble is, Obama was correct. Jose DelReal reported this morning:

General election voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest it’s been in any election cycle since World War II, according to early projections by the United States Election Project.

[Coach is Back!]

And once again you provide no link.

[dario73]

Even if it's true, SO WHAT!!!

That should indicate the disgust that exists with the democratic party. Yes, especially the democratic party since they have been setting the political agenda since 2007.

[LurkerNoMore]

No surprise.  Dems have mostly always fared poorly in midterms and special elections / run offs.

[240 is Back]

No surprise.  Dems have mostly always fared poorly in midterms and special elections / run offs.

repubs should be happy dems are too lazy to vote in midterms. 

when dems do bother showing up - they win 4/6 of elections in landslides.  They lose the other 2 by one close state.

If dems bothered to vote in midterms, congress would look way different.

[LurkerNoMore]

repubs should be happy dems are too lazy to vote in midterms. 

when dems do bother showing up - they win 4/6 of elections in landslides.  They lose the other 2 by one close state.

If dems bothered to vote in midterms, congress would look way different.

Exactly. 

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly. 

Dems showed up in 2006 and ousted Delay and crew remember?   

[LurkerNoMore]

Dems showed up in 2006 and ousted Delay and crew remember?   

And?  What's your point, other than you lack reading comprehension?

No surprise.  Dems have mostly always fared poorly in midterms and special elections / run offs.

[MCWAY]

repubs should be happy dems are too lazy to vote in midterms. 

when dems do bother showing up - they win 4/6 of elections in landslides.  They lose the other 2 by one close state.

If dems bothered to vote in midterms, congress would look way different.

Apparently you forgot the 1980s, three straight GOP landslide wins.

[240 is Back]

Apparently you forgot the 1980s, three straight GOP landslide wins.

that's back when the GOP ran conservatives - and the GOP won women.

Only 4 times in 3 decades have the GOP won women - all brutal wins.  80,84,88 and 2010.   And coincidentally, they ran badass conservatives those years.  No RINOS!

[Straw Man]

that's back when the GOP ran conservatives - and the GOP won women.

Only 4 times in 3 decades have the GOP won women - all brutal wins.  80,84,88 and 2010.   And coincidentally, they ran badass conservatives those years.  No RINOS!

actually the GOP's who ran and won in the 1980's (Reagan and Bush) would be unelectable by today's GOP

The party (at least the tail that wags the dog part of the party) is so far to the right of Reagan that he would get eaten alive in the primaries

[tonymctones]

actually the GOP's who ran and won in the 1980's (Reagan and Bush) would be unelectable by today's GOP

The party (at least the tail that wags the dog part of the party) is so far to the right of Reagan that he would get eaten alive in the primaries

the same could be said for the democrats there boss

[240 is Back]

actually the GOP's who ran and won in the 1980's (Reagan and Bush) would be unelectable by today's GOP

The party (at least the tail that wags the dog part of the party) is so far to the right of Reagan that he would get eaten alive in the primaries

reagan and romeny were pretty close on just about everything, if you think about it.

Reagan would get the nomination today, but the base would tell him to piss off, they woudln't bother showing up.

The 'right' calls what Reagan did compromise... today it'd be selling out, LIBBING, and uh, F&F.   I mean, sending arms to iran/contra and fast & furious are both illegal guns feeding bad guys.

[MCWAY]

that's back when the GOP ran conservatives - and the GOP won women.

Only 4 times in 3 decades have the GOP won women - all brutal wins.  80,84,88 and 2010.   And coincidentally, they ran badass conservatives those years.  No RINOS!

The GOP is winning with white women (especially married ones). It's black and Latino women that give the Dems their women's votes, especially the ones with babies out of wedlock. They tend to be broke and poor, thus more government-dependent.

But, if they follow Greg Abbot's lead in Texas (he beat Abortion Barbie with the ladies 52-47), the GOP is in good shape.

[240 is Back]

The GOP is winning with white women (especially married ones). It's black and Latino women that give the Dems their women's votes, especially the ones with babies out of wedlock. They tend to be broke and poor, thus more government-dependent.

But, if they follow Greg Abbot's lead in Texas (he beat Abortion Barbie with the ladies 52-47), the GOP is in good shape.

most raaces won't have that stark contrast and voting base as TX lol.

Win women, and you win elections.  it's that simple.  And women LOVE true conservatives.  Base women, they HATE a bullshitter, and they hated romney, and they hated mccain. 

You run a decent looking conservative that doesn't fck 999 different women or call teachers the C-word, and you win.  That's right, you run Rand, and you don't run Christie.  Agreed?

[Straw Man]

the same could be said for the democrats there boss

the same what ?

[tonymctones]

the same what ?

the same thing you said about the reps in your post genius