how long will it take for the democrats to match the republicans in terms of

[freepcrusher]

turnout? Turnout is one of the things that the democrats have had to deal with, that the republicans don't. In 2008, turnout helped Obama to a victory and to get to nearly a 60% majority in congress. In 2010, a huge lack of turnout helped them lose 63 house seats and six senate seats. My theory is that when the current crop of under 30 year olds become full-fledged adults (35 or older), it  will help prevent elections like 2010 happening.

[tpfkaw]

Never.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

As long as the Democratic base includes minorities and the poor, never.

[Miles]

As long as the Democratic base includes minorities and the poor, never.

Yeah; I'd also add younger voters.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Never.

^This^

I can't think of a single country where the left is better at getting people to turnout than the right.

[tpfkaw]

Never.

^This^

I can't think of a single country where the left is better at getting people to turnout than the right.

Vermont... (although that's not a country)

[freepcrusher]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

[freepcrusher]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

That quote doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the racism of the south, cause young people to get out and protest.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

That quote doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the racism of the south, cause young people to get out and protest.

It should but for the most part it doesn't.  And white males also hold the Republicans to greater hold then Democratic for reasons like the Repubs are true men, where Dems are girly men. Back in the FDR-Truman-JFK-LBJ era, this wasn't the case. And the way liberal are known to be labels such as being lazy, elitist, blacks, and other stereotype brainwashed white men thinking that the Republicans will help them because they are the party you can have a beer with and work hard.

[tpfkaw]

White men vote so Republican because Democrats are perceived as being hostile to white men (a perception which is indeed true in many cases).  It's actually quite surprising that white men don't vote more Republican than they do.

[freepcrusher]

white males also hold the Republicans to greater hold then Democratic for reasons like the Repubs are true men, where Dems are girly men. Back in the FDR-Truman-JFK-LBJ era, this wasn't the case. And the way liberal are prorated such as being lazy, elitist, blacks, and other stereotype brainwashed white men thinking that the Republicans will help them because they are the party you can have a beer with and work hard.
[/quote]

yeah this is also the issue I have found to be difficult to overcome. What caused the democrats to be portrayed as the weak/girly and elitist?

[freepcrusher]

White men vote so Republican because Democrats are perceived as being hostile to white men (a perception which is indeed true in many cases).  It's actually quite surprising that white men don't vote more Republican than they do.

Even white males aren't as homogeneous as you would think. For white men it really depends on background on how they vote. Single white men are probably more likely to vote dem than married white men. It also has to do with religion. If a white man is jewish or unchurched he is likely to vote dem, but if he is a churchgoing christian he is likely to be republican. If he owns a gun or likes hunting then he has a greater chance of voting republican then one who doesn't. It also has to do with region. In Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, New York and other areas white men probably vote democratic. The problem is that white men are disproportionately rural and therefore more likely to vote republican

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

white males also hold the Republicans to greater hold then Democratic for reasons like the Repubs are true men, where Dems are girly men. Back in the FDR-Truman-JFK-LBJ era, this wasn't the case. And the way liberal are prorated such as being lazy, elitist, blacks, and other stereotype brainwashed white men thinking that the Republicans will help them because they are the party you can have a beer with and work hard.

yeah this is also the issue I have found to be difficult to overcome. What caused the democrats to be portrayed as the weak/girly and elitist?
[/quote]

See Bush 1 88 campaign  against Dukakis and Bush 2 campaign against Kerry to see why most white males think this way. Soft on crime and defense does nothing for the white male that is concerned with appearance then with views on politics. 

[Napoleon]

Correct answer: feminism and gay rights

[Cincinnatus]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

That quote doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the racism of the south, cause young people to get out and protest.

It doesn't make much sense but, he's quoting LBJ.  To bad DixieCrats joined the Republican party.  Republicans went from anti-slavery to harboring the same ideology it opposed.  Bad reputation for us  

To answer the question;  As mentioned, the Democratic party relies heavily on the youth, minority, and votes of the low-class.  For obvious reasons it's harder to get bigger turnout from these groups.  The President did very well to appeal to youth voters especially, and because he's not just another "old-white" stereotypical candidate, I think he did much better getting the minority vote to the polls.  In all honesty, the Democratic party was wise to pick someone with his personality and characteristics.  

Yes, I've also heard the argument from some people that "Republicans are real men" relative to the democrats.  I'm not sure what the route case of this argument is, but, might it have some relation to avid gun rights, a Reagan foreign policy of military buildup, and Republicans opposition to gay marriage?  Obviously anyone with an inkling of intelligence knows none of these factors makes a "real man" but, we are talking about the majority of Americans here...

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Correct answer: feminism and gay rights

And that too. Macho men would hate any white men for being too "emo" for supporting gay rights, even though the trend for gay right support is higher then ever in the youth.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

And that Lyndon Johnson quote was to show a group of people the Dems have been losing since his landslide victory in 1964. White males.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Republican men are manlier than Democratic men?! Cue John Boehner.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

Republican men are manlier than Democratic men?! Cue John Boehner.

Lol. That how Repukes think but in reality, they are just like Democrats, only that they think there tough ass.

[krazen1211]

it seems that in the new deal era, turnout was never an issue, and it helped FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson to victory. During the 1933-1969 era, the democratic party averaged about 260 seats in the house

"We lost the south for at least a generation". That quote is why the Dems have had trouble getting us young voters and minorities to vote.

That generation ended a while ago, and it wasn't entirely true, as Democratic dominance of the South endured for a while at the state/local level.

Nancy Pelosi succeeded where Lyndon Johnson failed. The Democrats have lost the South for another generation.

[freepcrusher]

what does Pelosi have to do with losing the south. Weren't most of the congressional losses fairly distributed throughout the country krazen?

[krazen1211]

what does Pelosi have to do with losing the south. Weren't most of the congressional losses fairly distributed throughout the country krazen?

Not really. In the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Plains areas, the GOP mostly just won back the same seats they held 4 years ago, along with a couple flukes like PA-11. There weren't too many new seats, and there was proof that some seats like CT-05 were permanently gone.

It's in the South, and areas bordering the South, that the Democrats lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Guys like Spratt and Boucher were once considered invincible.

[freepcrusher]

what does Pelosi have to do with losing the south. Weren't most of the congressional losses fairly distributed throughout the country krazen?

Not really. In the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and the Plains areas, the GOP mostly just won back the same seats they held 4 years ago, along with a couple flukes like PA-11. There weren't too many new seats, and there was proof that some seats like CT-05 were permanently gone.

It's in the South, and areas bordering the South, that the Democrats lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Guys like Spratt and Boucher were once considered invincible.

That's like saying four years ago that its because of Dennis Hastert that the republicans were killed in the midwest and northeast.

"Its in the northeast, and the eastern midwest, that the republicans lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Someone like Jim Leach or Nancy Johnson were once considered invincible"

[krazen1211]

That's like saying four years ago that its because of Dennis Hastert that the republicans were killed in the midwest and northeast.

"Its in the northeast, and the eastern midwest, that the republicans lost seats that they've held for 100 years. Someone like Jim Leach or Nancy Johnson were once considered invincible"

Tom Delay, actually, but its mostly true. The GOP isn't really competitive in IA-2 anymore.