I'm confused: is a large turnout better for Brown or a low turnout?

[Day Summer]

Up to this day I kept hearing that a low turnout would be better for Brown. Now everyone is excited because there are large turnouts. So what is better, large or small?

[Relentless_Righteous_and_Right]

Any turnout is great because no real American is going to vote for Croakley.

The democrats will see the snow, whine, call city hall and ask for a handout to get a taxi to the polls so they can stab America in the back and then not go to the polls when the cab doesn't show up.

These jackals have no spine. Every vote cast for Croakley will likely be fraud.

[Nathan J. Theobald]

Well in this state it's typically a good sign for the demacrat. In this case it could just be that Mr. Brown has energized the independent vote to get out their & turn this into a Brown State. At least that is what I'm hoping for keeping my fingers crossed. I'm still waiting for a few friends to get out of work, then we're heading to the polls together to vote for Brown!

[DUANE DEMPSEY]

That assumption was that a low turn out would be the motivated. US That the Coakley people would not bother to vote since they think its a lock. That being said I'm not sure if that stands anymore. Scott needs to win big to account for any shenanigans. It will come down to who gets their vote out. VOTE BROWN early and often lol

[Grandpa]

Very good question. In my humble opinion a "large turnout" (40% or better) is reflective of a "motivitated" constituency. With that in mind I would think that the most "motivated" constituency in this election are those in favor of Brown. Subsequently, I would concur that a "large turnout", in this instance, would favor Scott Brown. Brown supporters are definately the more motivated of the 3 candidates.

Large vote counts favor Brown. Additionally because it is more difficult to "influence" a large vote count with fraud. Presumably if you were going to fudge 50,000 ballots it would be less influential if 3 million showed up to vote, as opposed to only 2.5 million. One last consideration is that "large turnout" gives more value to the ultimate winner. It would be more difficult to discount the "message" of the election if there are greater numbers of voters. Democrats would have to concede a "bigger message" from the people.

Just a simple opinion. Your thoughts?

I think this is a BIG MESSAGE election.

Go Scott Go !!

[Day Summer]

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Bradman family said:

Very good question. In my humble opinion a "large turnout" (40% or better) is reflective of a "motivitated" constituency. With that in mind I would think that the most "motivated" constituency in this election are those in favor of Brown. Subsequently, I would concur that a "large turnout", in this instance, would favor Scott Brown. Brown supporters are definately the more motivated of the 3 candidates.

Large vote counts favor Brown. Additionally because it is more difficult to "influence" a large vote count with fraud. Presumably if you were going to fudge 50,000 ballots it would be less influential if 3 million showed up to vote, as opposed to only 2.5 million. One last consideration is that "large turnout" gives more value to the ultimate winner. It would be more difficult to discount the "message" of the election if there are greater numbers of voters. Democrats would have to concede a "bigger message" from the people.

Just a simple opinion. Your thoughts?

I think this is a BIG MESSAGE election.

Go Scott Go !!

[Phil]

Last poll I saw showed un-enrolled voters going for Brown at like a 70% ratio. 51% of registered voters in Mass are unenrolled. I take that as a high turnout is good news for Brown.