Battleground-State Voters Leaving the Democratic Party

Conservative

Type 40
Jul 1, 2011
17,082
2,054
48
Pennsylvania
Battleground-State Voters Leaving the Democratic Party - 2012 Decoded

President Obama and his re-election team have prided themselves on their well-oiled get-out-the-vote effort. But a new study from the centrist think tank Third Way suggests Democrats are losing ground organizationally in nearly all of the key battleground states in the general election.

The group's analysis found that, in the eight politically-pivotal states that register voters by party, a significant number have left the Democratic party since 2008, with many choosing to register as independents. Over 825,000 registered Democrats in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have departed the party rolls since President Obama's election in 2008, a much more significant share than the number of Republicans (378,000) who have done the same. Meanwhile, the number of registered independents has ticked upwards by 254,000.

The Democratic decline is especially stark in Iowa and Florida, two early Republican primary states where Democrats have lost significant ground.

In every one of the eight battleground states, Democrats lost ground to Republicans.

let the libtard spin, begin :rofl:
 
How amusing.....when The BIG Story is.......​

"Romney begins February with formidable advantages in fundraising and organization. His campaign raised $24 million in the final months of 2011, dwarfing his competitors and leaving him with $20 million to fight a primary battle that's increasingly spread across many states."



493.gif
.
493.gif
.
493.gif
.
493.gif
.
493.gif


528.gif
 
I think it is a reflection of the disillusionment of the voting populace with both parties. And of course this year the Dem race was uncontested while the Republican race was contested for a couple of primaries.

And I think some of it has to do with local politics. I know in my county the election is always decided in the primaries. Democrats have no chance here in the general and if you want your vote to count you have to register as Republican because Republicans always win.
 
In another thread, it was shown that Independents are shying off of Romney.

It is looking like it might be a record year for the lowest turnout for Presidential election. Maybe if Trump runs a third party ....

Of course it all depends on the State and local elections too. Good local and state races can bring out the folks to vote.
 
More people are switching to "independent" from BOTH parties. This isn't some shocking revelation.

Along those lines, why wouldn't the Republicans allow those independents to vote in the Primary in California...it makes no political sense, but that is exactly what they did.
 
More people are switching to "independent" from BOTH parties. This isn't some shocking revelation.

Along those lines, why wouldn't the Republicans allow those independents to vote in the Primary in California...it makes no political sense, but that is exactly what they did.

Lots of states hold 'closed' primaries, on BOTH sides of the political fence. You're whining because CA Republicans did what Republicans AND Democrats in other states do?

Your feigned outrage is noted.
 
Every time I hear a "conservative" mention "....both Parties....", I know Republicans have (either) gotten BUSTED, for something, or.....they've just taken a SERIOUS ASS-WHUPPIN'!!!!!

529.gif
.
529.gif
.
529.gif
.
528.gif
 
More people are switching to "independent" from BOTH parties. This isn't some shocking revelation.

Along those lines, why wouldn't the Republicans allow those independents to vote in the Primary in California...it makes no political sense, but that is exactly what they did.

Lots of states hold 'closed' primaries, on BOTH sides of the political fence. You're whining because CA Republicans did what Republicans AND Democrats in other states do?

Your feigned outrage is noted.

Who is showing any "outrage"? I'm pointing out that it makes no political sense to keep those independents from voting in your primary. DTS voters make up 1/3 of my county's electorate. The GOP has told those voters in my modified open primary state to pound sand.

How does that make political sense?
 
More people are switching to "independent" from BOTH parties. This isn't some shocking revelation.

Along those lines, why wouldn't the Republicans allow those independents to vote in the Primary in California...it makes no political sense, but that is exactly what they did.

Lots of states hold 'closed' primaries, on BOTH sides of the political fence. You're whining because CA Republicans did what Republicans AND Democrats in other states do?

Your feigned outrage is noted.

Who is showing any "outrage"? I'm pointing out that it makes no political sense to keep those independents from voting in your primary. DTS voters make up 1/3 of my county's electorate. The GOP has told those voters in my modified open primary state to pound sand.

How does that make political sense?

And you feel the same about the Dems who hold closed primaries? They are telling the independents to pound sand as well?
 
I switched from Dem to independent, because the Dem's no longer represent the conservatives or moderates of their party.
 
Lots of states hold 'closed' primaries, on BOTH sides of the political fence. You're whining because CA Republicans did what Republicans AND Democrats in other states do?

Your feigned outrage is noted.

Who is showing any "outrage"? I'm pointing out that it makes no political sense to keep those independents from voting in your primary. DTS voters make up 1/3 of my county's electorate. The GOP has told those voters in my modified open primary state to pound sand.

How does that make political sense?

And you feel the same about the Dems who hold closed primaries? They are telling the independents to pound sand as well?

California doesn't have a closed Primary. They have a modified open primary system. Roughly 130 days before a primary, the parties must decide whether or not to let those "independent" voters vote in their Primary. The Dems have consistently allowed it. Why wouldn't the Republicans?
 
Who is showing any "outrage"? I'm pointing out that it makes no political sense to keep those independents from voting in your primary. DTS voters make up 1/3 of my county's electorate. The GOP has told those voters in my modified open primary state to pound sand.

How does that make political sense?

And you feel the same about the Dems who hold closed primaries? They are telling the independents to pound sand as well?

California doesn't have a closed Primary. They have a modified open primary system. Roughly 130 days before a primary, the parties must decide whether or not to let those "independent" voters vote in their Primary. The Dems have consistently allowed it. Why wouldn't the Republicans?

I wasn't asking just about california, i was asking in general.

However, now that you've brought it up, you are not completely correct about CA primaries.
Frequently Asked Questions - Primary Elections in California - Elections & Voter Information - California Secretary of State
How are presidential primary elections conducted in California?

Qualified political parties in California may hold presidential primaries in one of two ways:

Closed presidential primary - only voters indicating a preference for a party may vote for that party's presidential nominee.

Modified-closed presidential primary - the party also allows voters who did not state a party preference to vote for that party's presidential nominee.

If a qualified political party chooses to hold a modified-closed presidential primary, the party must notify the California Secretary of State no later than the 135th day before Election Day.

Now, I ask again... Do you hold the same opinion for Democratic closed primaries? That they are telling independents to pound sand?
 

Forum List

Back
Top