Gun Owners Don't Vote

[elkduds]

There was nothing in that article that supported the claim in the title (the article or the thread). No data, just normal political bashing. I think the author is upset not every republican gun owner automatically voted for the most hard core pro gun candidate.

Gun ownership does not automatically equate to GOP/NRA fidelity. For example, many gun owners want to see more legal enforcement to keep high capacity semi autos from being used against civilian targets. Including me.

 

[elkduds]

You've nailed it. That's a very true feeling. I hear it often. I've tried to figure out why folks would not vote, even if they know they aren't likely to win. Any vote cast that ends up on the losing side still has value by closing the margin of victory and should give cause for the winner to not be a complete wingnut.

If we think about who is going to be more moderate, the person who wins 60/40 or the person who wins 52/48? When we walk away without voting, we give the opposition what they want - the appearance of a victory of such great magnitude that their election is a mandate for the fringe on that side, not a mandate to govern for the people. If we look at the most moderate folks at any level, they are the ones who win their seats by close margins. Landslide wins by either side enables the guano-level craziness.

If the bastards are here to take something from me, I'm going down with the ship, fighting all the way. The "my vote doesn't matter" mindset is waiving the surrender flag.

For those that don't bother to vote, how likely are they to advocate with legislators between elections for their values and priorities? Not too. Hopefully HT advocates' encouragement mobilizes readers here to vote, and then to keep after legislators through commenting and supporting advocacy groups. That's a large part of why I value HT.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

This is why I don’t understand so called conservatives being against absentee voting. I vote in every election. If I have to take the day off work, and drive 45 minutes to someplace, stand in line, I’m probably just not going to do it. Rural people already don’t vote at a very high rate. That will only make it worse.

This is a very important point and I have asked myself this question numerous times. I believe that hunters and gun owners don't vote at a very high rate, along with rural citizens. Once upon a time, the NRA did a decent job getting gun owners to the polls. Their recent loss of credibility and leadership scandals have likely diminished their ability to mount any major voter registration/turnout campaigns. Here in Colorado, we have seen very successful multi-million dollar urban voter registration/turnout campaigns from major progressive PACs, such as ProgressNow and New Era Colorado. They have successfully shifted Colorado state government from purple-moderate-centrist to far-left progressive in very short order. Complete control of all levers of state government through a super-majority emboldens the most extreme factions of the party, regardless of what side of the aisle.

 

[FairWeather]

Gun owners aren’t a monolith.

When we’re talking about initiatives, it’s pretty cut and dry. When we’re talking about candidates, there’s a long list of issues that are more important to me than gun rights, and their stances on those issues are going to be what drives my vote.

 

[FairWeather]

In deference to SAJ-99 I don’t have the numbers in front of me this morning. Following the last election I was having coffee in my local gun shop. Outraged brewed at the gun control bill, “we have to fight they all muttered. We need to march on Portland” blah blah blah. The capital is Salem I offered. I pulled up the stats on the election, did a little math for the benefit of the assembled. Republicans had a poor showing, Fin is correct. Manipulation of the numbers showed a modest improvement in numbers would have defeated the gun bill, “217” but also changed the Governors Race. They still find a way to win was the response. Yep, “they” show up and vote.
Oregon has had mail in voting for years, you can easily register via DOL. There is no evidence of large scale tampering and little evidence of minor offenses on the system.

I don’t understand how/why any eligible voter isn’t voting. In Oregon it could not be easier! Most times I return my ballot the same day it arrives, weeks before its final due date.

I wish we’d adopt Australia’s model, and impose a small fine for NOT voting. It’s one of only 2 real duties we have as citizens. That, and jury duty. Just do it!

 

[BuzzH]

Voters might be more excited about voting if there were better candidates to choose from.

Wouldn't hurt if congress actually did their jobs as well.

 

[SAJ-99]

I believe that hunters and gun owners don't vote at a very high rate, along with rural citizens. Once upon a time, the NRA did a decent job getting gun owners to the polls.

The data on gun owners says otherwise (see link). When I hear a narrative with questionable claims repeated multiple times in relatively short order within a political cycle, I suspect there is a concerted effort to spread the narrative.

Rural voters typically vote absentee ballot for the obvious reasons others have pointed out. Voting should be made easier, not harder, and I wish every eligible voter would vote, but that isn't realistic. The issues we face are complex and the as @BuzzH points out, the candidates are largely too dumb to solve them. This is how we get fear and loathing on single issues as the drivers of why and how people vote.

Voter turnout isn't the point that should be drawn from the result. The Herrera lost by only 400 votes, doing much better than expected. 400 vote difference for a YouTuber known as "AK-guy" who ran on a single issue and could largely be viewed as completely unqualified for the job. It is possible that every one of the 29,639 voters who voted owns a gun, the author just didn't like the result and blames low gun-owner voter turnout. If turnout was 100% and AK-guy still lost, what would the claim be? Oh that's right, foreign nationals and illegal aliens, which he made sure to sprinkle in just in case he needs it for later.

Trump's Wrong: Gun Owners More Likely to Vote - FactCheck.org

In a speech at a National Rifle Association convention, former President Donald Trump deceptively stoked fears that if President Joe Biden is reelected, the government will be "coming for your guns." Biden has advocated a ban on so-called assault weapons, but he has not proposed confiscating...

www.factcheck.org

 

[bucdoego]

The data on gun owners says otherwise (see link). When I hear a narrative with questionable claims repeated multiple times in relatively short order within a political cycle, I suspect there is a concerted effort to spread the narrative.

Rural voters typically vote absentee ballot for the obvious reasons others have pointed out. Voting should be made easier, not harder, and I wish every eligible voter would vote, but that isn't realistic. The issues we face are complex and the as @BuzzH points out, the candidates are largely too dumb to solve them. This is how we get fear and loathing on single issues as the drivers of why and how people vote.

Voter turnout isn't the point that should be drawn from the result. The Herrera lost by only 400 votes, doing much better than expected. 400 vote difference for a YouTuber known as "AK-guy" who ran on a single issue and could largely be viewed as completely unqualified for the job. It is possible that every one of the 29,639 voters who voted owns a gun, the author just didn't like the result and blames low gun-owner voter turnout. If turnout was 100% and AK-guy still lost, what would the claim be? Oh that's right, foreign nationals and illegal aliens, which he made sure to sprinkle in just in case he needs it for later.

Trump's Wrong: Gun Owners More Likely to Vote - FactCheck.org

In a speech at a National Rifle Association convention, former President Donald Trump deceptively stoked fears that if President Joe Biden is reelected, the government will be "coming for your guns." Biden has advocated a ban on so-called assault weapons, but he has not proposed confiscating...

www.factcheck.org

Yes. I agree. We do have to consider the source. Even the various "Fact-Check-Orgs" can have bias too (and it is often prog/left). Don't care. I'll still consider it.

Low turnout and a close result were two valid points of the author of the ammoland the article, IMHO. No matter how it gets challenged, it is still a valid question, even if some will demand absolute "proof".

FactCheck.org Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of FactCheck.org. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

 

[bucdoego]

Voters might be more excited about voting if there were better candidates to choose from.

Wouldn't hurt if congress actually did their jobs as well.

Totally agree. We often don't get the best to run for public office.

 

[Marshian]

Voters might be more excited about voting if there were better candidates to choose from.

Wouldn't hurt if congress actually did their jobs as well.

Giant douche vs turd sandwich. South Park is spot on.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes. I agree. We do have to consider the source. Even the various "Fact-Check-Orgs" can have bias too (and it is often prog/left). Don't care. I'll still consider it.

Low turnout and a close result were two valid points of the author of the ammoland the article, IMHO. No matter how it gets challenged, it is still a valid question, even if some will demand absolute "proof".

FactCheck.org Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of FactCheck.org. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

It's not about left or right or the source per se. It is about the numbers. Every study I have ever seen shows gun owners vote at a very high rate and skew Repub. It is hard to measure because we don't/can't track hard data on gun ownership and instead rely on survey data. But I am skeptical that gun owners suddenly aren't showing up to vote more than non-gun owners. It is on the claimant to prove that. But the author didn't want to prove that. I suspect the point was to scare readers into voting in November. Normal politics these days.

 

[Forkyfinder]

View attachment 328289

Giant douche vs turd sandwich. South Park is spot on.

The only solace i can find in election season is south park.

Its the only show on tv that seems to reliably be unbiased in their trollery - which deserves some admiration.

 

[Nick87]

Voters might be more excited about voting if there were better candidates to choose from.

Wouldn't hurt if congress actually did their jobs as well.

Yah how do we get there is the question. I don't see it happening.

 

[Marshian]

Yah how do we get there is the question. I don't see it happening.

I signed the petition a few years ago for ranked order voting. I’m idealistic but maybe that’ll put a chink in the two party armor and allow some decent third party people to rise up. Ironically both D and R oppose this. They enjoy the monopoly.

 

[Bonasababy]

It's not about left or right or the source per se. It is about the numbers. Every study I have ever seen shows gun owners vote at a very high rate and skew Repub. It is hard to measure because we don't/can't track hard data on gun ownership and instead rely on survey data. But I am skeptical that gun owners suddenly aren't showing up to vote more than non-gun owners. It is on the claimant to prove that. But the author didn't want to prove that. I suspect the point was to scare readers into voting in November. Normal politics these days.

I'm not all that surprised. Setting aside that many gun owners are ok with increased regulation and place a higher priority on other things-- In red locales voting is more difficult. By their own design.

And what's the narrative the red folks push? That voting is rigged, that they don't count votes?

Well to those that believe that,what's the incentive to vote?

Just one of many ...but they remain totally clueless they hurt themselves repeating the lies.

 

[Nick87]

They enjoy the monopoly

So does everyone qho fronts the money to that puts them ahead of everyone else that's the problem. Never gonna change that unfortunately.

 

[SAJ-99]

I signed the petition a few years ago for ranked order voting. I’m idealistic but maybe that’ll put a chunk in the two party armor and allow some decent third party people to rise up. Ironically both D and R oppose this. They enjoy the monopoly.

I like the idea too, but it would need to be combined with a runoff election if no candidate got 50%. So much emphasis (time and $$$) is placed on elections these days, I'm not sure a runoff at the national level is palatable for the people or the party. Even in the example here (US House TX -23) 57,630 people voted in republican primary, but only 29,639 in the runoff.

 

[howl]

~10% turnout happens here when it's not a national election. They'll burn up the socials complaining tho.

Potheads are worse. All they had to do was run pro legalization candidates and all users vote. Just the pothead vote could elect anyone. It would have been legal decades ago. And these are people who see their peers imprisoned regularly!

 

[elkduds]

Voters might be more excited about voting if there were better candidates to choose from.

Wouldn't hurt if congress actually did their jobs as well.

And there would likely be better candidates if citizens were more involved in voting. Lotta sheep in the flock.

 

[elkduds]

I like the idea too, but it would need to be combined with a runoff election if no candidate got 50%. So much emphasis (time and $$$) is placed on elections these days, I'm not sure a runoff at the national level is palatable for the people or the party. Even in the example here (US House TX -23) 57,630 people voted in republican primary, but only 29,639 in the runoff.

What are the odds of that happening in Nov.?