A few days ago I noted that the big question in the election was which side was the most dispirited. I said I thought it would be the Republicans, and it looks like it may turn out that way. As Steve Benen notes total turnout for Republicans only slightly exceeded turnout in 2008, when they were, indeed, dispirited. Meanwhile, Obama posted some respectable numbers, given that he had no competition.
The Republicans have a choice between a man they viscerally and instinctively (with cause ) dislike and a menu of alternatives that appeal only to the fringes. Is it any wonder that Republicans stayed away from the caucus in droves. As Benen points out, while turnout to the Republican caucus was only slightly up from 2008, registered Republican turnout was down. The percentage of Independents and Democrats taking part in the Republican caucus increased, and who knows how many of those Democrats showed up just to do a bit of mischief? Though, truth be told, most of the non-Republicans were probably independents showing up to voluntarily impoverish themselves by giving Ron Paul the right to hand the keys to the country to the corporations. Still, what this means is that actual Republican turnout was lower than last time around; not a good sign for the GOP. Maybe it’s the case that in the long run, crazy doesn’t sell.
Along these lines, there have been a lot of Romney/Kerry comparisons, with some justification. Democrats settled on Kerry because they perceived him as being more electable than his competitors, some of whom (e.g., Dean) inspired more enthusiasm. But unlike Romney, Kerry was not widely disliked. He was merely uninspiring. That, to my mind, is a critical difference between the two. Kerry did not lose a single anti-Bush vote, but a lot of anti-Obama votes may stay home because they can’t stomach Romney, or they may throw their votes to a third party (Run, Ron, Run).
Post a Comment