Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't have to be a republican to choose a R ballot, just choose to vote republican in the primary.
Most show a drop in other races for the R party.
Here is the votes from my district:
Ballots Cast
As REP - 323
As DEM - 452
Voted for Gov
REP - 321
DEM - 431
Voted for
State Senator
REP - 207
DEM - 382
Voted for
County Commissioner
REP - 189
DEM - 362
Voted on
Millage Renewals
Renewal #1. 765
Renewal #2. 765
The neighboring communities (which are a bit more conservative - 3100 Reps ballots to 1200 Dem ballots and 12000 Rep ballots to 4000 Dems ballots) had similar results and falloffs of lesser R candidates.
Smash is losing his objectivity in the past few months. His opinions are a little to slanted..
He used to be able to see more than one side. He does know a lot about politics even if the lists of who is and isn't running is getting a little technical.
Come Nov, we will know how close to right he is.
Nita
This coming from someone who I use to say the same thing about who then suddenly went into the fringe Obama won't seek or will lose the Dem nomination territory....
Fact of the matter is in the cases of Missouri and Michigan the GOP had more competitive races than the Dems. Casing point in Michigan, on the Dem side you had two candidates for Governor, one of them not all that well known. On the GOP side you had five candidates running for Governor, three of whom were well known. As far as House races in Michigan, you really only had one district in which the Primary was competitive on the Democratic side, on the GOP you had four competitive House Primaries two of which were so tight and competitive they are likely headed for recounts.
In Missouri while neither Senate Primary was competitive the Dem Primary was even more lopsided than the GOP one. The GOP had a somewhat competitive race on the other statewide race (Auditor) while the Dems did not. Out of house districts, the Dems did not have any races that were competitive the, GOP had two.
Don't know about the voting today but in the early voting in Tennessee twice as many Republicans voted than Democrats. Plus it set a record for early voting numbers in the state. Although, not sure if it's Republican fervor or because the Democrats only have one candidate running for governor. There were House races though for which you would have thought the Democrats would have turned out.
Don't know about the voting today but in the early voting in Tennessee twice as many Republicans voted than Democrats. Plus it set a record for early voting numbers in the state. Although, not sure if it's Republican fervor or because the Democrats only have one candidate running for governor. There were House races though for which you would have thought the Democrats would have turned out.
The Dems not having a Primary for Governor is key. Also as far as the House races go, the GOP which has competitive races in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and perhaps an argument for the 8th, have more competitive races than the Dems, which have the 6th, and 8th and perhaps the 9th (though that is a huge blowout)
Doesn't mean much. Primary turnout is often determined by how competitive the Primary races are. In both Missouri and Michigan the GOP had more competitive races than the Democrats did.
Ya, the independents didn't get their say in the matter, until the big show.
Wonder which way the independent vote is leaning?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.