PREDICITON: Record voter turnout by Democrats in November!

[Tigermike 3,046]

Personally, I'm hoping for this kind of record voter turnout by Democrats in November.

Voter turnout for tiny North Dakota town: Zero

By JAMES MacPHERSON – 6 days ago

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Pillsbury Mayor Darrel Brudevold said voter turnout in the city's primary election usually is fairly high.

"I dare say a half-dozen people usually make it to the polls," he said. That represents about a quarter of the residents in the Barnes County farming community, in southeastern North Dakota.

But on June 10, no one showed up. Not even those on the ballot.

Brudevold ran unopposed for re-election. His wife, Ruth, and Dan Lindseth faced no challengers for their alderman seats.

"Everybody has got a job and they're busy," Brudevold said. "It just worked out that nobody seemed to go down there to the polls."

Only about 11 people live in Pillsbury proper, and the remainder of the residents live on farms outside the city. There is no precinct in town, so residents must drive about 12 miles to neighboring Sibley to cast their votes.

Brudevold's wife, Ruth, runs the beauty shop and is the town's postmaster. She said she was too busy with work to make it to the polls.

Brudevold said he intended to vote, but that he had crops to tend.

He said he assumed at least one person would show up to vote. But since no one did, Brudevold said he'll ask state election officials what to do next.

Brudevold, who has been mayor for a dozen years and was an alderman before that, said he doesn't think the current five-member body will change.

Barnes County Auditor Ed McGough said those in office can stay there and appoint people, including themselves, to the jobs until the next election.

"I presume things will stay the same," Brudevold said. "We're just a little village, and when you're elected to one of those jobs, well, once you get it, you got it."

The council meets about five times a year, Brudevold said. Members are each paid $48 annually, and a good portion of that goes for doughnuts at the meetings or gas to get there, he said.

Brudevold said he has no need for a gavel because attendance at the meetings is lackluster at best.

"Not everybody usually makes it to the meetings, so it really doesn't get out of hand," he said. "The only time we really get people to show up is when we want to raise taxes — then everybody shows up."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i63b4xz...mys0fQD91AS05O0

[lukeduke 8]

No voter turnout....Obama will still draw 75 votes there in November.

[RunInRed 16,454]

DEBUNKED:

Further evidence of the work that grassroots supporters have done over the past year and half to register voters, organize communities, and bring people back to the political process . . . officials are seeking 2MM poll workers they expect such record turnout and TM is worried about one town in North Dakota - brilliant.

2 million poll workers wanted for November elections

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

States and counties are putting out "help wanted" signs five months before Election Day in hopes of finding hundreds of thousands of younger, tech-savvy poll workers needed to handle an expected record turnout.

... With a one-day workforce of nearly 2 million poll workers wanted by November, election officials are busily recruiting at high schools, colleges and businesses. They're looking for people who can speak foreign languages or help voters with disabilities. They're making training more convenient and splitting long workdays in half.

"The first challenge is just in the sheer numbers," says Dean Logan, acting clerk of Los Angeles County, which needs 25,000 poll workers in the nation's most populous voting jurisdiction.

More than 122 million Americans voted in 2004, up from 105 million in 2000. The number is expected to jump again because of high interest in the White House contest, which drew near-record primary turnout on a percentage basis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...llworkers_N.htm

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nothing was 'debunked' There were zero voters who turned out for an election, and that's the fact.

[RunInRed 16,454]

Nothing was 'debunked' There were zero voters who turned out for an election, and that's the fact.

All indications point to a record voter turnout in November and to post an article about a one-horse North Dakota town as proof otherwise is a poor attempt to twist the truth.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nothing was 'debunked' There were zero voters who turned out for an election, and that's the fact.

All indications point to a record voter turnout in November and to post an article about a one-horse North Dakota town as proof otherwise is a poor attempt to twist the truth.

You realize many of those high Dem voter turnouts in the primary were due to the rock star attention given Obama vs Rodham campaign, don't you ? And then there were the Operation Chaos voters, conservatives who were voting Democrat since McCain had already wrapped up the GOP race.

Many scorned Hillary voters and all those GOP voters who went to the Democratic ballots in the Primary won't be voting Dem come November. You DO realzie that, right ?

[RunInRed 16,454]

Nothing was 'debunked' There were zero voters who turned out for an election, and that's the fact.

All indications point to a record voter turnout in November and to post an article about a one-horse North Dakota town as proof otherwise is a poor attempt to twist the truth.

You realize many of those high Dem voter turnouts in the primary were due to the rock star attention given Obama vs Rodham campaign, don't you ? And then there were the Operation Chaos voters, conservatives who were voting Democrat since McCain had already wrapped up the GOP race.

Many scorned Hillary voters and all those GOP voters who went to the Democratic ballots in the Primary won't be voting Dem come November. You DO realzie that, right ?

So what all about all the new voters that registered?

Are you saying there won't be a record turnout in November?

[kwagoner 214]

half a dozen usually show

There were more than six people in my office that didn't go, primarily b/c of work.

However, the overall high turnout can be attributed heavily to the glamor of the BO/HRC battle. Regardless of how it turned out, I doubt the turn out will be as high (not to say records won't be set) when the real deal goes down. Those that do show will probably not all be on the same page either. A lot of inner party turmoil surfaced IMO. In something that close and with so much pressure I would always be concerned the winner may have an even tougher road ahead of them.

Football relation to how I see it (in a way): Mich vs. OSU ............UF waits

[Tigermike 3,046]

DEBUNKED:

Debunked?

Either you don't know what the word debunked means or you didn't read the article.

[autiger4life 3]

While I don't think voter turnout will be that high, I'm not sure a town that usually gets twelve voters is the best measurement.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So what all about all the new voters that registered?

Are you saying there won't be a record turnout in November?

We'll see if all thsoe 'new voters' are legal or not. But either way, the most participated election in history saw Bush beat Kerry by over 4 million votes. Conventional wisdom has always told us that high voter turn out means good news for the Democrats. Not so, according to history.

[RunInRed 16,454]

So what all about all the new voters that registered?

Are you saying there won't be a record turnout in November?

We'll see if all thsoe 'new voters' are legal or not. But either way, the most participated election in history saw Bush beat Kerry by over 4 million votes. Conventional wisdom has always told us that high voter turn out means good news for the Democrats. Not so, according to history.

Legal new voters? What are you talking about? Link?

Anyways, here's some food for thought:

The Democratic Party maintained its huge edge in party identification during the month of May. Barack Obama’s Party now has the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago (see history from January 2004 to present).

During the month of April, 41.7% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats. Just 31.6% said they were Republicans and 26.6% were not affiliated with either major party. This is the third straight month Obama’s team has enjoyed a double-digit edge.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of women say they’re Democrats and just under 30% identify with the GOP. Men are more evenly divided—36% say they’re Democrats and 34% Republican.

Democrats have the advantage among all age groups and also lead among those who earn less than $75,000 a year. The two parties are even among higher-income adults. Party identification is essentially even among Investors but Democrats have a 47% to 25% advantage among non-Investors.

May was also the fourth straight month that the number of Democrats topped 41%. Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support. Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based upon telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002.

These results are based upon tracking surveys of 15,000 adults per month. The margin of sampling error for the sample is less than one percentage point, with a 95% level of confidence. Please keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not Likely Voters.

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...partisan_trends