Democrats cannot win with 31% turnout...

[kentuck]

The old saying that "Republicans do not win when Republicans turn out to vote, they win when Democrats do not turn out to vote" has never been more true than in the state of Kentucky last night.

Yes, it was an off year election and we expect turnout to be somewhat less than in a presidential year. But, they were having an election for Governor and statewide offices. Still, they only got 31% of the people out to vote. The Republican Governor candidate won by 9%.

Translated, that means that when there is a low turnout, such as 31%, the Republican will win 99% of the time. Because there is a dedicated percentage of Republican voters that can be counted on to go to the polls in every election. That is what happened in Kentucky last night, in my opinion.

But, Republicans did not win across the board. Democrats won the Secretary of State and the Attorney General races. How were they able to win but the Governor candidate could not? Those are legitimate questions. No doubt, money played a big role in the last few weeks of the campaign.

However, the underlying problem is one of turnout. Turnout is predicated a lot on educating the population and getting them emotionally involved in politics. Democrats are failing in these areas, in my opinion.

[madamesilverspurs]

1. .

[liberal_at_heart]

3. Democrats can deny reality and blame the voters all they want. It won't stop it from happening.

The only way to get people to vote is to elect candidates that represent the people, not the rich.

[still_one]

61. While that is a good ideal, the values of states like Kentucky are not necessarily the same

values as states like California. In fact that was the whole point behind Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. So the point you made is to elect candidates that represent the people, really comes back down to the people. If the candidates that represent the people are not running, then it is up to people to organize grass roots levels on candidates they believe representative to run, or run themselves.

A person not going to the polls to vote is NOT a passive action. It is someone exercising their opinion, in this case abstain, and there can be all sorts of reasons for that.

You single out the rich in your comment, but ironically, Bevin, who won in Kentucky, is the rich Trump like person.

[liberal N proud]

2. Exactly why the GOP is always throwing up roadblocks to voting

They know that if everyone voted, they would never win an election.

We have to get out the vote next election if we want to take back Congress and retain the White House.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. If DWS sends out tweeters, will that help?

She's pretty good with that social media stuffs.
Hillary can do the facebook and snapchat!
That should improve turnout, right?

[Eleanors38]

9. She can send out a mailing asking what issues matter most...

...and at the top of the form I got in Texas is "Gun Control."

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Geez, srsly, culture war issues <facepalm>

Corruption, the economy, jobs,
infrastructure, education, ecology...

and she wants to double down on
losing the culture war!?! WFT

[iandhr]

5. The party has invested a lot of resources

to improve turnout In off elections. There are people who work 12 hour days seven days a week to try to get people to the polls . You could lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[jwirr]

75. Can you tell us exactly what the party is doing in those 12

days to get people to vote?

[iandhr]

91. Phone calls, canvasses the type of work that can win elections.

[jwirr]

92. I have done all of that. Just hoped there was more. Thanks.

[iandhr]

93. A good field operation can be the difference between winning and loosing.

[KamaAina]

6. And yet a proposal for mandatory voting was met with teabagger-like paranoia

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027310720

[liberal_at_heart]

10. No one will ever force me to vote. You can call it teabagger like paranoia all you want.

I will vote when I have a candidate I want to vote for.

[JackInGreen]

17. Would you mind being able to abstain

But on the ballot?

[retread]

18. It's still a secret ballot? Correct? You can skip races or turn in a completely blank ballot.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. Not the point. There would be a lot of people who would not vote simply because they were

being forced to. You cannot force people to vote. You just can't. Forget about it being wrong. It would not work. People would not vote.

[LittleBlue]

58. So people can't protest anymore?

Many protest the political process by not voting. You'd be depriving them of that.

Forcing people to vote is immoral and unconstitutional. It's rooted in fascism. The state may not force political participation.

[KamaAina]

64. So Australia is fascist?

[LittleBlue]

66. They do have those tendencies, yes

You probably aren't aware of how much their society censors free thought. They're possibly the worst of all western countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

Spain with its anti protest laws, various free speech restrictions. Fascism may have died in Europe (and their colonies) but it was in name only. Many totalitarian ideologies live on. In Portugal the elites have decide that the elected government can't sit. In France Muslims are deprived of their right to exercise their religion by banning their clothing.

Please explain to Native Americans why you are forcing them to vote for a country they don't believe in

[arcane1]

65. Protesting the political process by not voting just makes the process worse. It's brain-dead stupid.

Some people like to pretend they're taking some moral stand, but what they actually do is ruin it for everyone. Apathy, laziness, and stupidity are not moral stances.

[LittleBlue]

67. So you're going to drag Native Americans to the voting stations?

We took their land, we killed their people and destroyed their nations. Here's the kicker. You have decided that they must vote for one of two white candidates for president of the country which nearly destroyed them as a people.

So are you going to tell them they can't protest?

[arcane1]

68. I hadn't thought of the NA angle, you do have a point there.

But in the end, what does that protest accomplish except electing politicians who have zero support from Natives, and thus zero concern for them?

[LittleBlue]

69. You're right about it not accomplishing anything

Ultimately it does hurt them. But at the same time, everyone has their pride. To some it means so much that they won't participate no matter what.

[jwirr]

76. I don't know what reservation you are from but Native Americans

vote. Last time I voted I saw a couple of kids hitchhiking to the polls. I picked them up because I knew right were they were going. We went to vote together and I took them home after.

[LittleBlue]

82. No shit. That's exactly why compulsory voting is wrong

I've got anecdotal evidence too. But that doesn't change the fact that some want to vote and others do not. The ones who want to vote can vote, the ones who don't shouldn't be forced to vote. You should meet more NAs before concluding that they all want to vote just because you met a few who do. That is the whole point of freedom.

Glad that's settled.

[jwirr]

83. My family is Native American and we live on a big reservation.

I have never seen the Natives on this reservation not vote. They know the Federal government is in control of much of the business and life on the reservation. For them the federal vote is much more important than state votes. They also vote for their own local leaders.

I don't think they see the vote as a protest - they are much more likely to use physical protests like they did in DC on the Keystone XL. Every so often we are asked to come out for or against some issue.

Your point is still valid just not on my reservation.

[LittleBlue]

84. I did taxes for a lady who wouldn't touch anything by our government, including a ballot

So we've concluded that some NAs want to vote and others don't. It's a good thing we have that right for their sakes.

Glad you see it my way,

[jwirr]

85. My point was that on a very cold day in November there would

be not other reason to be hitchhiking. And I also knew about the GOTV going on and the rides for the elderly and others to get to vote. There were issues they all cared about.

[LittleBlue]

86. What does that have to do with anything I said?

Maybe you need to go reply to someone who is doubting your claim that some NAs vote.

What exactly is your point in telling me these things?

[jaysunb]

7. Just another reason to make the DNC a functioning

organization. We must have a Howard Dean type person at the helm.

This is getting beyond "serious."

[closeupready]

50. Or perhaps Democrats aren't liberal enough anymore.

[onehandle]

11. We had a lot less of a turnout in Pennsylvania and yet Democrats swept the elections. nt

[Eleanors38]

13. The GOPers have hard, bright line stands on issues, and hammer the opposition...

Democrats have gathered "stakeholders to come to a concensus on win-win solutions so we can all move forward."

Such passion.

[jeff47]

15. This. (nt)

[appalachiablue]

32. Finding that special- warm purple place is the idea I believe.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Push for all vote-by-mail. It works.

[yeoman6987]

52. I hope we never so that.

I like going to vote. Seeing neighbors. Standing in line talking. It's fun. It's an event to me. And the you get the ballot. Fill it out and scan it in. I have fun. I doubt I'd fill a mailed ballot. Why do you think I pay all bills electronically? I used to open the bills put them aside and forget about them. I am horrible with that.

[Arugula Latte]

70. Giving up socializing for a half hour is a small price to pay for a much better political system.

[yeoman6987]

73. How about getting off the couch and go vote? (Not you just the voter)

[Arugula Latte]

74. Well, that's not working. Turnout is dismal. Millions who don't vote aren't sitting "on the couch"--

they're at work at crappy low-wage jobs where they can't take time off to vote, or they're caregivers who can't leave their charges, or they're disabled and have a hard time getting to the polls, or they're so stressed out and busy they forget it's election day, or they haven't had time to learn about the issues (in Oregon we get a booklet with our ballots describing the different measures and candidate positions, etc.), or they are college students who are away from their polling places, and on and on ...

[yeoman6987]

87. That excuse is nonsense

They found time in 2008 and 2012 to take off work at their crappy jobs as you say and come to think about it they miraculously did So in 2006. Excuses can be made all day.

[Arugula Latte]

88. We get higher turn out on off year elections.

It's weird to me that you're so against something that has been proven to increase turnout and results in more liberal measures getting passed and more Democratic candidates winning -- Republicans are fucked here in Oregon thanks in large measure to vote by mail. People can vote at their leisure over a couple of weeks. Why should voting be relegated to one small inconvenient window, unless you like hindering democracy?

[yeoman6987]

89. I am against it because I get myself to the voting table every year

I would not send back the ballot. I'd forget. We are the new generation that does bills electronically and barely know what a post office is. Laziness on Election Day is criminal.

[Arugula Latte]

94. You're against reforming the system for everybody even when the stakes are so high

just because you prefer to vote a certain way? Here's a story from the November '14 election. You could have THIS:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/06/1342546/-Oregon-voter-turnout-was-69-5-and-Democrats-won-BIG#

[brooklynite]

16. I observe that nobody responding to this thread is offering an opinion on what the KY Party did...

...or didn't do. It's all DNCs fault.

Well, DNC can help, and provide resources, but ultimately it's your State and local Party units that are responsible for voter turnout.

[kentuck]

19. I could accept that each state is different...

In Kentucky, there were certain issues that deflated the turnout which may not have happened in other states, namely, coal mining, gay marriage, and Barack Obama. It's a difficult place for a progressive to try and win.

[jeff47]

21. The problem is much larger than KY.

KY is just the most recent incarnation of a much larger, national problem.

Our overall campaign strategy keeps failing. It is long past time to move on to another strategy.

[saturnsring]

20. stupid kentuckians they vote in a dem sos and ag then put in a teabagger gov who is gonna

stop those 2 from getting anything done

[jeff47]

22. I bet the more insults you hurl at them, the more they will do what you want! (nt)

[saturnsring]

26. stupid is as stupid does - wether i call them stupid or not it was a stupid move, amiright?

and relax they arent listening to me anyway

[jeff47]

27. That depends on if you want to change what happens

or if you want to just keep hurling insults.

The stupid here isn't the voters. The stupid is running yet another Republican-lite campaign and being surprised at low Democratic turnout.

[saturnsring]

30. since i have no impact on what kentuckians do it matters not what i say

we'll have to agree to dis agree on where the stupid is. the left not voting only drives the left pols futher to the right. you aren't "showing them" anything. when the right takes away the little you have left cause you were standing on your principles waiting on perfect remember them dem pols still get 175000 a year with benes and perks and you can go back to working 7 12 hour days no minimum wage no vacation no protections.
now you can blow this off as mere scare tactics but that's what the right wants - because that's what business wants slave wagers no vacation no protections etc. so stay home you'll show them. stupid is as stupid does

[jeff47]

33. They only drive the "left pols further to the right" if those pols are dumb.

Again, Republican-lite keeps failing over and over again due to low turnout.

You are arguing that those failures mean we need to run more Republican-lite campaigns.

How about running a campaign that doesn't directly attack our own party instead? Perhaps that might get a wee bit better turnout than "you lazy fucks better vote for me!".

[saturnsring]

36. so stay home - that'll really show them - the republicans you help get elected will thank you

by taking away your weekends

[jeff47]

40. The difference is Democrats will negotiate away Saturday as a compromise

And then three years later negotiate away Sunday as a compromise.

How do I know? They already did it in my industry.

[saturnsring]

42. the left not voting only drives the left pols more to the right and this is what you get

[jeff47]

47. Because when a strategy fails, the best course is to repeat that strategy.

Republican-lite can not fail! It can only be failed!!

Again, your big bogeyman was losing the weekend. I write computer software. The weekend is gone. Democrats did most of the work to kill it - they worked VERY hard to ensure I remain an exempt employee and there were plenty of H1B visas to compete against. In fact, our frontrunner has been an enormous help to ending my weekend via her support for H1B visas.

But now that your weekend is in danger, it's time for me to save yours. By continuing to elect the people who took away mine.

[Big Blue Marble]

43. Before you call Kentuckians stupid,

look at the results. If 40k voters had voted for Conway the result would have been different.
Kentuckians have traditionally voted for the Democrats in their state elections, only two Republican
governors in the last fifty years.

Something went very wrong this time. It behooves us to understand what happened and not
call people stupid.

Also note that these offices have autonomy. A Democratic Attorney-General (Conway) helped bring
down the last Republican Governor for corruption. This one, Andy Besmear, may well be our next
governor.

[saturnsring]

46. 31% turnout my guess is that that 31% isnt all dems

[Calista241]

24. And everyone thinks Hillary Clinton will be the candidate that motivates people to vote? N/t

[Eleanors38]

37. Why, she Will motivate many: She's putting out an add big on gun control.

[Calista241]

54. Yeah, that should work.

Practicing the old shoot myself in the foot strategy.

[Eleanors38]

62. The issue is national. Some blue state Democrat needn't worry, but purple state

Democrats -- even if they are strong on 2A -- WILL have to answer to the position by the blue stater. THIS is why the issue was Nationalized in the first place.

[Calista241]

80. I agree completely. Imo, guns are a very bad issue for us.

It's akin to abortion for Repubs.

We absolutely need to win some purple states to win the presidency, and this issue makes that many times harder.

[merrily]

57. Between Hillary and the actions of the DNC, I would not be surprised to see picketing as close to

polling places as they can get. And I do expect a lot of staying home, which I think is the very worst thing a voter can do with their franchise.

I love voting. I even love standing on line with my neighbors. I loved it a little less in 2004, when it was pouring rain, but someone introduced me to the Speaker of the Mass House who were standing in front of me and we had a nice conversation. Lovely, lovely people. He's in federal prison, where quite a few Mass speakers have gone and he has cancer now, but I bet he's still pleasant to everyone. And they did make the four hours standing on line* go by faster.

*Until recently, the law of the blue, blue state of Massachusetts provided for only one day for voting, but at least we did go to paper ballots in that 2004 Presidential, the validity of the votes that do get cast, regardless of how few, being another issue about which little is done by most officials.

[tk2kewl]

25. it requires candidates that excite people

i.e. not more of the same ol' same ol'

[saturnsring]

28. more of the i need to be dazzled to vote -

[tk2kewl]

29. people need something to vote for IMO

I'm not talking about dazzling, I'm talking about policy positions that people can understand and see how it will improve their lives.

but sideshows work too - see trump.

[saturnsring]

31. how about keeping what little you have isnt that something to vote for

the 2 parties are not the same. it's better than not voting

[jeff47]

34. That is not what is being offered.

Instead, it's lose ground, or lose ground slower.

Whether you take the direct route to Hell or the scenic route to Hell, you still end up in Hell.

[saturnsring]

38. not voting isnt gonna solve any of that. oh well lookee here The election’s No. 1 issue was healthca

The election’s No. 1 issue was healthcare. Bevin made rejecting Obamacare and the expansion of Medicaid a central theme of his campaign. by not voting they'll lose their healthcare - those dems sure showed them whose the boss

[jeff47]

41. Continuous failure should make the Democrats realize they need to change course.

We'll see how long they have to lose before they consider changing course.

[saturnsring]

44. how has that worked so far

"The difference is Democrats will negotiate away Saturday as a compromise
And then three years later negotiate away Sunday as a compromise.
How do I know? They already did it in my industry."

apparently not so well but maybe more not voting will help

[jeff47]

49. Well, voting for Republican-lite sure hasn't helped.

I lost voting for Republican-lite, and you're worried I'll lose by not voting.

Hrm....such a massive difference....

[tk2kewl]

45. even if our candidates suck *I'm* still gonna vote for them

but "the lesser of 2 evils argument" doesn't a movement make

[LanternWaste]

51. It requires nothing more than personal conviction...

It requires nothing more than personal conviction, regardless of excitement, branding, entertainment or Arbitron ratings. Confusing the former with the latter allows one to more easily enter the realm of the irrational.

[tk2kewl]

63. well... a lot of folks do not have that conviction

and it's the party's job to get them out to vote. good candidates help a lot

[Big Blue Marble]

35. Last election Beshear won with only a 28.6% turnout.

I saw earlier today that Governor Patton (D) won his second term with around 20% in 1999. Probably,
this result is more complex than just turnout. Dems have won with low turnout. And they lost with higher
turnout i.e. Paul, McConnell, and Fletcher.

http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Election%20Statistics/turnout/2011-2019/2011/TRNSUMMARYGEX11.txt

http://elect.ky.gov/statistics/Pages/turnoutstatistics.aspx

I agree, this was partly about voter education and I think the Dem state party failed to fully inform the voters as
to what was coming with a Bevin victory. The negative ads pushed the meme that he was an out-of-state
conman. That was not effective in both getting out the vote or waking people up to the reality of a Bevin
victory. The future we will be living with now.

At the same time, there was energized motivation concerning Kim Davis and social issues that Bevin
successfully tapped. So once again, the Republicans were able to turn the results on social issues
that have little relevance in people's lives but are extremely significant to their "values."

There was an incredible amount of vote splitting for Beshear and Grimes to win with the Bevin landslide.
I suspect voters who would normally vote democratic, were signaling that they were very unhappy with
gay marriages in the state.

[restorefreedom]

39. yet more proof that if clinton is the nom

people will stay home in record numbers, the House and Senate will be swept, and all three branches will belong to the Republicans. But hey, all that really matters is if she's the nom right? Screw the party screw the country screw the people. It's all about her.

[Vinca]

48. That's my biggest fear.

She doesn't generate excitement the way Obama did and I'm scared to death we might end up with Ben Carson in the White House.

[restorefreedom]

53. i think a trump presidency is a real possibility too. nt

[Skittles]

55. a lot of Obama voters have lost that excitement

he disappointed many, too many times

[840high]

90. Yes. That's why we shouldn't

take Trump lightly.

[backscatter712]

72. Yep. We can thank Hillary, DWS, and the other Third Way DINOs

When they resort to underhanded crap to ensure the nomination for the Democratic Party is decided in a smoke filled room, instead of by, you know, democracy, it ensures that millions of people watching it happen are going to sit out the election.

People are not fired up and ready to go for Hillary.

[restorefreedom]

78. they will be ready for a movie or american idol

but not going out in whatever weather to vote for more of the same

[merrily]

56. 31% for an election that is neither a Presidential nor a mid term is not bad, relatively speaking.

We don't do much better for Presidentials, even when one segment or the other is excited about their candidate or an issue on the ballot.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/02/bernie-s/checking-bernie-sanders-americans-low-voter-turnou/

[Kingofalldems]

59. We need to see the return of Gov. Dean.

[DemocraticWing]

60. Turnout was 28% in 2011

Considering the right-wing direction of the state's electorate, I've long wondered if the low turnout in off year elections was what helped Democrats keep state government.

[kentuck]

77. In 2010 and 2014...

Republicans took over the House with huge majority and took over the Senate in 2014, both off-year elections. Democrats do not turn out in competitive numbers in off-year elections, for whatever reason.

[spanone]

71. if we don't increase voter turnout, the MINORITY will fucking rule this country.

[restorefreedom]

79. they already do. its a plutocracy now

and this is probably our last real chance to restore free and fair elections by electing a president that want to overturn citizens united

[jwirr]

81. And given what is at stack that is not a good idea for 2016.

[Tatiana]

95. Kentuck you are absolutely correct.

I rarely come to this site anymore -- politics is just too depressing. We had so much promise in 2008 and now I feel as if it is all we can do to survive.

Democratic voters are depressed. They simply don't have a reason to turn out. I believe that the national political landscape is affecting local politics. People look at candidates like Hillary Clinton and think, "been there, done that. Is that all you have to offer?"

I live in the reliably Democratic state of Illinois -- however, we elected a Scott Walker-esque right-wing Republican monster named Bruce Rauner. He's waged a batter with the legislature and as a result, most of our social service safety net is crumbling before our very eyes. One of his top goals is to break the unions and he will not back down. He doesn't care about the suffering of others -- he's a sociopath, like Scott Walker and he only cares about the millionaires (and billionaires) that line his pockets. Illinois voters picked him over Pat Quinn -- a moderate Democrat who did the best that he could with what he had, but made some mistakes (like alienating long-time Democratic constituents).

I guess my point is that Republicans have no problem being reliable voters because I think a good many of them lack compassion and a sense of empathy for others. Republicans like Walker and Rauner are appealing because they promise to go after and drag down all the so-called people who are "getting over" (read: doing better) on them. True Democrats are a different breed. They care. They have a conscience and they use it when making decisions such as voting.

Instead of blaming Democratic voters (and driving them further away), we need to embrace a strategy that offers these people candidates that offer solutions that will truly improve their lives. Democrats are not Republicans. We cannot take the voting base for granted. We also have to understand the values of Democrats in one state may be very different from the values of Democrats in another. But the overall point is that Democrats care about others and want everyone to do well (or at least better). We need to focus on running candidates that appeal to voters in each locality -- not candidates who will be owned by big business and special interests.

Conway was a very good candidate. He should have won. That he didn't is very disturbing.

I fear we are in for some tough times ahead.