How do Democrats increase midterm turnout?

[Lief 🗽]

Democrats need to stop treating midterms like they are any different from presidential election years. That worked in the party system of the 20th century, but it doesn't work anymore in the polarized party system of the 21st century. They need to run national campaigns every two years. They need to write and promote a coherent national party platform, with concrete promises of what policies they will work to pass after the election if they win. The president needs to campaign just as hard as he does in presidential years. It might help to consider putting on a televised national convention as well, and national televised debates between the party leaders need to be considered as well.

[King]

Mandatory voting is difficult to implement and would somehow be seen as fascist or something.

I think a better plan would be to tie voter turnout to federal state funds and have them figure out how to drive up turnout themselves.

[Mehmentum]

Democrats need to stop treating midterms like they are any different from election years. That worked in the party system of the 20th century, but it doesn't work anymore in the polarized party system of the 21st century. They need to run national campaigns every two years. They need to write and promote a coherent national party platform, with concrete promises of what policies they will work to pass after the election if they win. The president needs to campaign just as hard as he does in presidential years. It might help to consider putting on a televised national convention as well, and national televised debates between the party leaders need to be considered as well.

I think this is the way to go.  Democrats spent this year running away from everything their party stood for.  I understand why they did it,  but its a flawed strategy that ended up doing nothing for them.

We won Senate races in red and purple states when Obama was literally on the ballot, so don't tell me we couldn't do it in 2014 when he wasn't on the ballot.

[Rockefeller GOP]

How about just try to win back some swing voters you've alienated?

[Sbane]

How about just try to win back some swing voters you've alienated?

That's not what happened in this election though....

Republicans think the American people actually support their policies. That's cute.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How about just try to win back some swing voters you've alienated?

That's not what happened in this election though....

Republicans think the American people actually support their policies. That's cute.

What is comes down to, is that to most people Washington = the President. People irritated and/or frustrated vote against the President's 'representative'. It's really hard for the GOP to argue that this is an endorsement of the GOP, or its policies... because there were none.

[Orser67]

Dem mid-terms since WW2:

Good: 2006, 1986, 1982, 1974, 1958, 1954

Ok: 1998, 1990, 1970, 1962

Bad: 2002, 1978, 1966, 1950

Disaster: 2014, 2010, 1994, 1946

The key for Democrats would appear to be having a Republican President in office.

[AggregateDemand]

Dem mid-terms since WW2:

Good: 2006, 1986, 1982, 1974, 1958, 1954

Ok: 1998, 1990, 1970, 1962

Bad: 2002, 1978, 1966, 1950

Disaster: 2014, 2010, 1994, 1946

The key for Democrats would appear to be having a Republican President in office.

The unbridled-hatred-model of motivating voters has its drawbacks.

[Mister Mets]

With a Democratic President, the main way to increase turnout for Democrats is to ensure that the President is really popular.

If that doesn't happen, turnout is going to be low or against the President.

[publicunofficial]

Democrats need to stop treating midterms like they are any different from presidential election years. That worked in the party system of the 20th century, but it doesn't work anymore in the polarized party system of the 21st century. They need to run national campaigns every two years. They need to write and promote a coherent national party platform, with concrete promises of what policies they will work to pass after the election if they win. The president needs to campaign just as hard as he does in presidential years. It might help to consider putting on a televised national convention as well, and national televised debates between the party leaders need to be considered as well.

I agree 100% with this. If people only show up to vote for President, treat every race like a Presidential race.


Also, mandatory voting is a terrible idea. Any party that attempts to implement it will be rewarded by voters voting for the opposite party in retribution.

[TNF]

If the Democrats were actually interested in winning elections, they would behave like Republicans. That is, they would stop pretending that politics is about anything other than building a base from which to exercise power and holding on to that power. If the Democrats had taken a page from George W. Bush and passed everything they had the votes to pass in 2009-10 (and gotten rid of the filibuster to do that) regardless of the shifting winds of public opinion, they'd be in much better shape today. They'd probably not have lost the House and the Senate in 2010, for starters. Politics is all about delivering the 'goods' for your side, rather than having a debate with people who aren't interested in compromising you in the least. The Democrats continue to fail to understand that, and I think they'll never honestly get it, so I really don't think that there's a way that they can truly increase the turnout of their own base when it comes to the midterm elections.

[Sol]

If the Democrats were actually interested in winning elections, they would behave like Republicans. That is, they would stop pretending that politics is about anything other than building a base from which to exercise power and holding on to that power. If the Democrats had taken a page from George W. Bush and passed everything they had the votes to pass in 2009-10 (and gotten rid of the filibuster to do that) regardless of the shifting winds of public opinion, they'd be in much better shape today. They'd probably not have lost the House and the Senate in 2010, for starters. Politics is all about delivering the 'goods' for your side, rather than having a debate with people who aren't interested in compromising you in the least. The Democrats continue to fail to understand that, and I think they'll never honestly get it, so I really don't think that there's a way that they can truly increase the turnout of their own base when it comes to the midterm elections.

Exactly. Democrats never seem to understand that making grand gestures towards bipartisanship doesn't win you much if the opposing side has no interest whatsoever in reciprocating.

Compare the national Democrats to the Colorado Democrats. The latter has been, since taking control of the legislature, laying the groundwork for a deeply left-wing legislative agenda. And they still did better than most swing states this year, even keeping the governorship when  Anthony Brown lost.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If the Democrats were actually interested in winning elections, they would behave like Republicans. That is, they would stop pretending that politics is about anything other than building a base from which to exercise power and holding on to that power. If the Democrats had taken a page from George W. Bush and passed everything they had the votes to pass in 2009-10 (and gotten rid of the filibuster to do that) regardless of the shifting winds of public opinion, they'd be in much better shape today. They'd probably not have lost the House and the Senate in 2010, for starters. Politics is all about delivering the 'goods' for your side, rather than having a debate with people who aren't interested in compromising you in the least. The Democrats continue to fail to understand that, and I think they'll never honestly get it, so I really don't think that there's a way that they can truly increase the turnout of their own base when it comes to the midterm elections.

Exactly. Democrats never seem to understand that making grand gestures towards bipartisanship doesn't win you much if the opposing side has no interest whatsoever in reciprocating.

Compare the national Democrats to the Colorado Democrats. The latter has been, since taking control of the legislature, laying the groundwork for a deeply left-wing legislative agenda. And they still did better than most swing states this year, even keeping the governorship when  Anthony Brown lost.

Well of course, bi-partisanship requires the "bi-" element to be in place.

In many ways, the GOP continues to be the much better sales people. I mean, push Obama into putting essentially GOP or GOP-lite policies in place... then whine that he hasn't worked with you. Noting that you never intended to work with him and what you define as a compromise is getting exactly what you wanted in the first place.

Then, you run around squawking saying that Washington is broken and it's his fault. And make his own party's candidates so afraid of him they tell him not to show up.