[lbo-talk] Republicans see opportunity in split

[snitsnat]

At 11:52 AM 7/28/2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Hoover wrote:
>
>>fwiw: some mainstream poli sci people claim there is little difference in 
>>political attitudes of voters and non-voters, thus, they assert that 
>>markedly higher turnout would produce few differences in already existing 
>>outcomes...
>
>Yup. I presented some evidence of that a while back and was roundly 
>denounced by Nathan & Co.
>
>Apropos turnout benefiting the Dems: the standard wisdom I was citing was 
>that of pundits, not political scientists.
>
>Doug

Having looked at the evidence during that earlier debate, I agreed with you 
that there's nothing particularly unique about the subset of the population 
that does vote.

But, isn't the issue that, when higher turnout benefits dems, it's because 
a high enough percentage of those folks are more likely to be democratic 
voters. Hence, the Dems focus on the poor, etc. etc.?

Plus, if most people stay home b/c they can deal with the status quo or are 
barely cognizant of the issues enough to know what the status quo is, 
aren't the people who come out to make the numbers unusually higher likely 
to be disgruntled or hoping to protect something or effect change?

It would seem that this is what the GOP GOTV effort was about: getting out 
the vote among conservative leaning christians who don't normally vote with 
a bunch of FUD about Gays, feminists, the breakdown of the family, 
bestiality, etc.?

Kelley

"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."

                        -- rwmartin