General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

72. Poor turnout doesn't make a victoy less clear

Reply to jeff47 (Reply #68)

Wed Apr 8, 2015, 12:13 PM

Apr 2015

It can make claimed mandate less valid, but the win is no less clear.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

150 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, does Rahm's victory in Chicago tell us anything? [View all] MineralMan Apr 2015 OP

Money talks and wins elections now Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #1

Money has always been important in elections. MineralMan Apr 2015 #5

That's why Hillary Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #12

Why does other politicians go to the same sources and you only mentioned Hillary? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #14

Why don't you Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #17

Okay Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #24

Yes .......... I'm a sellout.....for personal advancement........LOL Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #44

Start the advancement of yourself, maybe running for office in the next election, show what Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #46

My brother was the county judge of Travis county for three terms Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #49

Quite frankly, many of us do a lot for our party and country and our communities.......... leftofcool Apr 2015 #86

like you have DONE NOTHING Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #102

Poster was asked what has he done Long Drive Apr 2015 #111

You don't know how I see things. MineralMan Apr 2015 #20

With over 50% not voting, this same group who cries they do not have a candidate they are Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #27

Yup. We have elections. Someone wins. MineralMan Apr 2015 #37

You forget that if they don't vote F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #79

Who are they? MineralMan Apr 2015 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author Dragonfli Apr 2015 #141

If it was just money republicans would have california JI7 Apr 2015 #98

tHATS A BULLSHIT STANCE Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #103

Yes. Most Americans don't care enough to get off their asses and go vote. octoberlib Apr 2015 #2

Charles Pierce had an interesting piece on one particular influence on the race he bullwinkle428 Apr 2015 #3

Completely agree with you. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #10

I don't think Emanuel won handily. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #4

Twelve points is "handily" FBaggins Apr 2015 #7

If you say so. He couldn't muster 50% in the general. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #9

What's my point? FBaggins Apr 2015 #15

I sort of agree that a 12 point victory in a race with 28% turnout is less than 'handily won' at Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #22

So your point is there's nothing to learn here. In other words, there is no point. kysrsoze Apr 2015 #55

for a mayor of Chicago? foo_bar Apr 2015 #31

When both are of the same party? Yes FBaggins Apr 2015 #42

That's because it's the first time that ever happened. jeff47 Apr 2015 #61

That was the point FBaggins Apr 2015 #66

As long as you also ignore the abysmal turnout. Then it becomes "clear". (nt) jeff47 Apr 2015 #68

Poor turnout doesn't make a victoy less clear FBaggins Apr 2015 #72

Sure it does. jeff47 Apr 2015 #87

Only if you move the goalposts to an entirely different field. FBaggins Apr 2015 #89

Only those who vote have their opinions counted. MineralMan Apr 2015 #90

No, they are the ones who choose the winner. jeff47 Apr 2015 #91

I'm results-oriented. In an election, only results MineralMan Apr 2015 #94

And when the results are bad whomever wins? jeff47 Apr 2015 #101

Then don't show up. See if that works out better for you. MineralMan Apr 2015 #107

Voters who were satisifed with Rahm didn't have to vote in order for Rahm to win. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #118

Yah, but a bunch of them turned out and voted for him. MineralMan Apr 2015 #122

Evidently not! With a poor turnout like this, nothing can be drawn from it to predict the 2016 . . Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #129

That's not a particularly low turnout for an odd-numbered MineralMan Apr 2015 #133

***Please wait . . . flip flop in progress*** Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #135

Absolutely! Clinton didn't win 50% of the vote in 1992, and yet he was President. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #120

More importantly, he won by almost 6% and better than 2-1 in electroral votes FBaggins Apr 2015 #124

Ahhh, the Electoral College! Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #132

First runoff ever because the law was changed frazzled Apr 2015 #142

Thanks for your post. octoberlib Apr 2015 #13

Why doesn't this over 50% offer another candidate? You can say people are not enthusiastic about Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #16

I don't disagree. I think the problem here was that octoberlib Apr 2015 #63

Easier voting would be very good. I have worked the past few years in a voting precinct and some Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #99

Because any potential candidate will be shredded by the party machine jeff47 Apr 2015 #65

But why do machine attacks work? It's not like people can't take 2 minutes and Google the positions Chathamization Apr 2015 #67

Because those "change" candidates only start with a sliver of support. jeff47 Apr 2015 #69

How many machine candidates lie about progressive issues on their sites? I haven't seen any saying Chathamization Apr 2015 #70

You're talking as if there are only two candidates. jeff47 Apr 2015 #85

When over 50% do not vote, then if this 50% got a candidate, went and voted who do you think Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #100

In this case there were just two candidates. And the progressive had heavy progressive support. Chathamization Apr 2015 #144

Probably not FBaggins Apr 2015 #6

+++++ LeftInTX Apr 2015 #104

Changing the structure of elections has consequences FBaggins Apr 2015 #106

Money talks and big money talks loudly. hobbit709 Apr 2015 #8

Yes. A few things, maybe...1) the majority of voters vote against their own interests Zorra Apr 2015 #11

Did electronic voting prevent over 50% of the voters from showing up and voting? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #19

I don't know; but it's not likely. See #2 above. nt Zorra Apr 2015 #113

This is true, and those who thinks it a waste of time to vote should be happy with whatever results Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #127

Agreed. Yellowdog Dem in every GE since I was old enough to vote. Zorra Apr 2015 #134

Yes, we know who isn't for our issues, the GOP is still taking from the 90% and giving welfare to Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #137

Who is going to run things in the aftermath of this "revolution"? DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #21

I don't know. Hopefully really smart and kind democrats, even better Zorra Apr 2015 #34

They were landed bourgeoisie slaveholders... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #45

Blahblahblah. Do you have any idea how simplistic and ludicrous your response is? Zorra Apr 2015 #105

Ooooooohhhhh, I'm so hurt by your puerile invective DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #140

I voted paper ballot in my ward yesterday alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #57

At some point you have to faith in the system ... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #59

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #88

Yes: you can't just be an "anti" candidate frazzled Apr 2015 #18

Thanks for your response. That's exactly what I was MineralMan Apr 2015 #23

Re-enforces that human nature hates and fears change. CK_John Apr 2015 #25

Yes, that's pretty much the case. MineralMan Apr 2015 #35

Obama clearly campaigned & advocated policy views that he did 180s on JonLP24 Apr 2015 #50

Rahm had far more money JonLP24 Apr 2015 #26

You mean he had a GOTV effort in place? MineralMan Apr 2015 #38

It certainly helps to have the resources JonLP24 Apr 2015 #60

I think the election that tells us most about 2016 was the one in Ferguson. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #28

I certainly hope you're right. MineralMan Apr 2015 #39

Let's hope. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #71

It takes more and more votes today to challenge a single campaign dollar. nt valerief Apr 2015 #29

Emanuel got trounced in numerous Latino majority wards alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #30

How many of those wards are there? MineralMan Apr 2015 #74

Chuy won handily in 16 of the approx 48 Wards alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #78

Thanks. I did not have that information. MineralMan Apr 2015 #92

Yes, he won handily alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #93

I'll have to take your word for his time as Mayor. MineralMan Apr 2015 #95

Whatever alcibiades_mystery Apr 2015 #96

Rahm had the only vote that counted and that was Michael Madigan's AngryAmish Apr 2015 #32

Stupid works. ieoeja Apr 2015 #33

He had 20 million dollars and is an incumbent? Starry Messenger Apr 2015 #36

Indeed, I'm sure those things played a large role. MineralMan Apr 2015 #41

It proves only one thing. 99Forever Apr 2015 #40

So, do you suppose campaign financing is going to MineralMan Apr 2015 #43

Fuck no. 99Forever Apr 2015 #47

There's not going to be any revolution in the US. MineralMan Apr 2015 #52

Well no shit. 99Forever Apr 2015 #56

Well, I'm not seeing anything in your posts that indicate MineralMan Apr 2015 #75

What am I proposing to improve our sysytem? 99Forever Apr 2015 #146

Where I am that's exactly who runs. MineralMan Apr 2015 #147

Chicago supports their mayor. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #48

That a Republican billionaire got what he paid for: think Apr 2015 #51

"Not as bad as the other guy" truebluegreen Apr 2015 #53

Since 20% of Chicago voters voted for Romney in 2012 betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #54

I would guess that a lot of that 20% stayed home Amishman Apr 2015 #73

The GOP Machine was behind Rahm fredamae Apr 2015 #58

Given the reports coming out of Chicago regarding doctored ballots it says something. davsand Apr 2015 #62

yeah, NM_Birder Apr 2015 #64

One of Rahm's own advisers was kind enough to share what it told him. pa28 Apr 2015 #76

Ya, the crazy left. Didn't Rahm have a few choice words for that? think Apr 2015 #77

That adviser is absolutely correct. MineralMan Apr 2015 #80

Yep. Who needs the left when you have a GOP Billionaire stuffing your coffer? think Apr 2015 #82

The left needs the left. MineralMan Apr 2015 #84

The left just got beat by a Democrat funded by the GOP. The party is the problem. Not the left. think Apr 2015 #138

Not sure about that Chathamization Apr 2015 #145

" . . . can think great thoughts and read poetry for Chuy. . . " Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #125

He did not win in all wards. former9thward Apr 2015 #81

That you can cheat, outspend your opponent by a lot and still not win by much. Rex Apr 2015 #97

It tells me that we have marketing campaigns, not political campaigns.[n/t] Maedhros Apr 2015 #108

What does that even mean? Campaigns are marketing. MineralMan Apr 2015 #109

They sell us products we don't need, Maedhros Apr 2015 #114

Are there elections? MineralMan Apr 2015 #116

I have a friend very much like you. Maedhros Apr 2015 #143

Yes, the system is broken. Broward Apr 2015 #110

I see. In what way is it broken? MineralMan Apr 2015 #112

I believe there is truly a lot to be said about an excellent campaigner. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #115

It tells me that residents of Chicago elect their mayors BainsBane Apr 2015 #117

Mostly, I don't know where DUers are located. MineralMan Apr 2015 #121

If everyone did the same BainsBane Apr 2015 #123

Yes. I believe you're correct. MineralMan Apr 2015 #128

Money trumps peace and nearly everything else in this country. JEB Apr 2015 #119

That's easy enough to say, I suppose. MineralMan Apr 2015 #130

Not something I want to say. JEB Apr 2015 #149

Depends on the office. MineralMan Apr 2015 #150

IMO, his opponent didn't inspire a great deal of confidence. Vinca Apr 2015 #126

Yep... WillyT Apr 2015 #131

Posted to for later ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #136

Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #139

Damn, Ichingcarpenter's (rude) question to me got hidden ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #148