Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control FAIL. (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Already the blame game begins. (10+ / 0-)

    Why did the dems lose? I've seen a couple reasons given already.

    Low information, yeah that's what did in the Dems in CO. Never mind that these races have been getting national attention for months now, with everybody and their uncle bloomberg jumping into the fray to get their information into the hands of coloradans. Yeah, low info, that's the ticket! That's why the Dems lost!

    Low turnout, yeah, that's what I meant! Low turnout is why the Dems got kicked out. Never mind that so much attention was being given to these races that everybody and their uncle bloomberg was being courted for their vote and therefore everybody wanted everyone to get their asses to the polls if they were the least little bit interested in participating. Low turnout, yeah, that's the ticket! That's why the Dems lost!

    Low money, yeah, that's what did in the Dems. Never mind that the nra's strength has always been in the spare time of the membership rather than money. Never mind that there is no dollar amount that can match the countless random conversations one-to-one that happened between a motivated pro-recall person and someone else. It must have been the money, if only there was more money then the votes could have been... ?bought? Or something. But more money, never mind the motivation of the people, it was more money that would have been the ticket to victory! That's why the Dems lost!

    •  math? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, 88kathy, PsychoSavannah

      The scales were tipped by .96 percent of 21% of the eligible voters. Three hundred and forty three votes.
      That's the district were the ousted Senate president served for two terms.

      How do you draw any will-of-the-people conclusions from those numbers?

    •  It's obvious it's low turnout (4+ / 0-)

      Dur to low interest.  On part of the electorate.

      The NRA used a tried and true election trick: schedule a vote on a matter that has a small, highly motivated group's interest in a minor (better yet "special") election. Despite the money and the advertising, if people aren't that motivated to vote because the question in play is not a major focus for them, and if voting is made somewhat more difficult by removing vote by mail, then the highly motivated group's influence will be multiplied many times over due to low turnout on the other side.

      Enhanced gun control may have broad support, but the support is not fanatical except among a few voters. Broad but shallow. Anti-gun control types may not be as numerous, but a substantial fraction of them are quite fanatical indeed: guns are a major part of their personality, they can't imagine living without guns, and the very fear that drives the urge to own guns among some makes them susceptible to being frightened by groups such as the the NRA.

      The result: even in a special election they turn out. Because they're motivated.

      This vote would very likely have had a different outcome were it held as a regular election; certainly during a Presidential election when the most people vote. The NRA knows this.  Heck, I suspect even some of the folks running around here gloating know that.

      But, as with anybody trying to game the election system (whether by stripping people off voter rolls, implementing voter ID, stacking voting machines in favorable precincts, or gaming the system with special elections) the NRA did not want a fair hearing on this. They didn't want a lot of voters at the polls. They just wanted their voters.

      And they used a well-worn method to assure it.

      A minor setback in a minor election is just that. It's inevitable in any movement and it doesn't mean that the effort to bring sanity to U.S. gun policy is derailed.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site