Question about 2002 Midterm Elections...

[Gaffey Duck]

What led to the low Dem turn-out and high GOP turn-out?

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. rigged voting machines

nuff said

[AIJ Alom]

2. the use of 9/11 as a vehicle to spread the false sense of the "war"

president.

[Doosh]

3. it's more of a personalized, state by state thing

and you have more chance of crossovers in Midterm elections, it's not regarded as important as presidential. You can't really compare the two.

[Francine Frensky]

15. I voted in 2002; I am a volunteer in 2004

Based on my canvassing and phone calling, I see a lot of people really fired up to vote out bush. Now I've never done this volunteer stuff before, so I can't compare, but the point is that I am more motivated than I was, and I suspect I'm not alone.

[DaveinMD]

4. Dems

ran a campaign that didn't challenge the Republicans on anything.

[finecraft]

6. Agree. Plus if you weren't with the pRes. you were with Osama

All Democrats were portrayed as unpatriotic, even if they had voted for everything bush wanted (which 90% of them did). Ask Max Cleland how the scam worked....they worked him over good.

[DaveinMD]

9. Cleland

never responded to the attack.

[kiahzero]

5. Ridiculous amounts of spending by the GOP.

I wish I could find the numbers again, but the GOP outspent the Dems by a wide margin.

[NAO]

7. Dems thought it was business as usual...repugs planed a massive takeover

The whole 9/11 fear=uber-nationalism thing was going full force. The Dems were whipped into agreeing to everything the repugs wanted.

People on our side thought it was no big deal, and nothing was really said otherwise...however on the repug side they planned this massive coup.

[Bonchak]

10. exactly!

We got lazy and they turned out their base effectively. No chance of that happening this time around.

[bobbieinok]

8. religious right colleague said W asked christians to vote and they did

this was in response to my question about why vote in CO and GA and other states was so different than polls the day before

[Awsi Dooger]

11. This may sound silly, but I look at it like a sporting event

One of my best and most reliable sports wagering theories, on the college level: when you have a huge game with an extremely close and disputed outcome, the victor inevitably emerges enthused and revitalized, winning its next game big. The loser does just the opposite, exhausted and stunned and unmotivated. It's next game is usually a dud.

I offered that analogy, obviously referring to Florida 2000 as the devastating loss, and possible Democratic discouragement shortly after joining DU in September 2002. My theory was treated as freeper idiocy, that Democrats were energized more than ever after 2000. I replied that was much more likely in 2004. I never mentioned the theory again until now, but I'm convinced it's relevant.

[DaveinMD]

12. I don't disagree

I am a Direct Mail consultant. All the focus groups I saw showed that people were disallusioned. It didn't help that the party didn't let us do the hard hitting stuff that would have energized the base.

[Francine Frensky]

13. Well, Georgia had the diebold machines,

and we got creamed by the republicans, even though the polls did not suggest such a thing would happen. fraud? perhaps.....

But, it rained heavily in Atlanta, and that is where the dem base is, so turnout was low.

I think the mentality was totally different, too. We weren't mad at anyone, we were all still stunned by 9-11, we didn't understand we were about to be taken into Iraq.... I just think the dynamics are so different now.

Also, re: Max Cleland, I think he's a decent guy and all, but he wasn't great as a senator, as a dem I was frustrated with him because he had sided with bush to pass that awful tax cut for the wealthy, and I think there just wasn't any kind of strong positive feeling for him.

[DaveinMD]

14. it wasn't fraud

Chambliss was closing hard on Cleland because of those nasty ads and the undecideds went his way because Cleland never fought back.

[Francine Frensky]

16. But we did lose our dem governor in an upset also

again, I agree that fraud is speculative, but it really can't be ruled out....

Now, again, I think the number one reason was low turnout in urban Atlanta. Rain, plus lack of a real interesting person on the ballot (ie, this year we have Denise Majette running for senate, first black woman, could get some urban vote turnout).

[DaveinMD]

17. Dem turnout

was down and Perdue ran ahead of expectations because he riled up the prejudices of people around the confederate flag. The races weren't really close enough for fraud to be necessary.

[Awsi Dooger]

18. I agree with you

But we're among very few on DU who don't attribite Georgia 2002 to Diebold alone. I was reading all about Ralphie Reed's big push in Georgia throughout that campaign, in addition to the vicious ads.

Another thing: Georgia state polls invariably overstate Dem strength, for whatever reason. I've noticed that dating to '94, long before Diebold.

[DaveinMD]

19. I watch these races closely

and I was worried about Max two weeks out. My former employee, who was from Georgia, told me Max was going to lose one week earlier.