Why do less Democrats vote in "special elections" than Republicans?

[kentuck]

At least, for the last 20 years or so, I have noticed that is a trend. I have seen Republican Senators voted into office in special elections in states that were considered Democratic at the time, Wyche Fowleer of Georgia comes to mind in the 1980's, although Georgia was turning to the right after Jimmy Carter and Zell Miller were Governors. However, there have been special elections all across this nation and you will be hard-pressed to find where a Democrat has won under normal circumstances. Which brings us to the recent election in California between Bilbray and Busby. The Democratic "base" is less likely or less motivated or less informed, perhaps because of demographics, than the Republican Party. I think that was a big factor in the Bilbray/Busby race. Just my opinion.

[formercia]

1. A little secret

more bang for the buck and getting their stealth candidates installed with little fuss.

[MrBenchley]

2. CA-50 is VERY heavily Republican

and Wyche Fowler was a Democrat, not a Republican....

[dsc]

3. Not entirely true

First the GA example you site was a runoff not a special election. Fowler won the first election with 48 or 49 percent but a libertarian had gotten around 5 percent. When the election was runoff as required under GA law Fowler lost. Evidently the libertarian was taking nearly all his votes from the Republican. As I recall Fowler got just about the same percentage as he had in the first race.

Second, Democrats win special elections all the time. It hasn't made the news because we have had virtually no Congress members have to resign or die. But in my city the current Congressman won his seat in a special election in 2004 and then won it again in the regular election. California had a special election as did Hawaii in the fairly recent past to fill seats of people who died. Both races won by Democrats. Finally just prior to Clinton taking office Wofford won in a PA special election.

I honestly doubt that more Republicans vote in special elections and actually the race you site shows that. The district in question is very heavily Republican yet Republicans barely out showed Democrats. A similar thing happened in Hacketts special election.

[bornskeptic]

6. Also Stephanie Herseth won in SD in 2004 n/t

[neoblues]

4. Seems we're not on the distribution list...

so we don't get the memos ("secret special election tomorrow, 9am sharp, be there or be square (ie. "Democrat"), haha").

[Recursion]

5. Maybe cause we've got jobs? nt

[Rose Siding]

7. Dems have won big in special elections this year

State house seats in TX, NH and PA. There was a big win in a repub district in VA for a state senate seat early this year. And in CA's special election for his ballot initiatives, Arnold, the Republican, got creamed.

[kentuck]

9. Maybe the tide is turning ?

Or it was just my perception. Much like i feel the Republicans use absentee ballots much more effectively than Democrats... :)

[Totallybushed]

8. I haven't done a study

on the issue, nor have I read one. However, I would guess that we are more aware of those elections that go against us than of the ones that we win. Like any other thing. We remember more intensely those moments that we have been humiliated than those where we have a triumph.

That's just my opinion, of course, and there do seem to be a lot of Dem losses lately. I don't have a theory about why that is. :sarcasm:

[BeFree]

10. They "Say"

Did you know some people think the votes were hacked?

Those folks say shady electioneering is a key vulnerability of the pukes.

That there is a boatload of honest evidence detailing republican 'advantages' built into the election process.

They claim that if the pukes could point out just one case of Dems doing the same, and stealing votes, it would be on Faux news! Every gawldurn night! Endlessly.....

They say that being spineless about the culture of corruption diseased voting systems, and wearing a pink tutu while typing about it, is really quite the rage with wannabe republican leaders.

Say it ain't so. Tell me they are wrong. They are destroying the bushco form of democracy!

[Toots]

11. I think Republicans are much more regimented

They are more driven to get their way. Democrats are more casual about everything. IMO Democrats say "why can't we all just get along" and Republicans don't want to get along. They want you gone, destroyed and they get all you own. We are the meek and I can only hope Jesus was correct when he said the meek shall inherit the earth.

[shance]

12. Because it's Republicans who own the information now of who votes

and who doesn't.

And, because our Democratic leaders (sans John Conyers)are doing nothing to stop the privatization of our vote, and the tabulation of votes by Republican owned companies who don't have to show us proof of their tabulations without a court order. So now, we have to depend on the "trustworthiness" of Republicans who have cheated previously to tell us the truth about the outcome of our elections.

Cheers!

[demosincebirth]

13. We don't have "hot button" issues like the rupugs