In Alaska, the state where I live, people are taking a very different view of what the elections are like than I am. The majority of Alaskans who voted for the first time in 2012 voted for the people in the state they want to live in, and people who voted for the first time in 2014 voted for the people they want to live in too. I think this is a very positive sign that this is indeed a very important election year in our country.
This is a good sign, and the fact that so many voters thought so highly of their candidates in 2012 tells me that they were in fact very happy with their choices and that the candidates they cast their ballots for were indeed very good. The fact that voter turnout was at a record low in both 2012 and 2014 tells me that there’s a lot of hope for the betterment of our country going forward.
The question is whether or not the GOP’s gains in the 2010 and 2014 elections were due to turnout problems or voter apathy. In theory, voter apathy would not be a good thing because it would mean that people are more concerned with their own personal financial concerns than with the welfare of the nation as a whole. In reality, voter apathy is pretty much the opposite of the truth.
The Republican party in particular has an advantage in that they have a huge majority of the population that they can rally around them. They can mobilize that population to vote. They can show people that they are the people they say they are, the people they claim to represent. But this isn’t just a theory. There are a few studies that have shown that voter apathy has very little impact on the outcome of elections.
In this case, the Republican party is doing so well that their apathy is actually hurting their chances of winning. The Republicans have lost two of the three seats they needed to take the majority last night in Alaska, and they still don’t have a majority. The other seat is in the state senate, where the Democrats have a majority. So the race is far from over, and if the Republicans want to hold on to their majority they will have to win both seats.
I have no idea why it might be a political problem for the Republicans, but one thing that I do know for sure is that it ain’t good. If you’re in an election and need to convince a certain group of people that you care about them, you have to convince them that you care about them. Even if you think the reason you care about them is because you’d like to kill them or you want to do something really bad to them (i.e.
I mean that in the nicest possible way. It’s like if you wanted to convince someone that you were serious about killing them because you wanted them to get something from the company, you have to give them what they want.
The election results show that a lot of people felt disillusioned with the way the government handled things during the presidential election.
In some ways this is one of those cases where the result of an election is like a wake-up call for people who were previously unaware of what they were doing wrong. If you’re going to be an active participant in any political process, you have to be aware of what everyone else is doing wrong (or at least not good enough for them to be involved in the process) and actively seek to improve it.
And you don’t have to be a Democrat to feel this way. Republicans do, too. Some of the most vocal Republicans are the ones who feel they should be able to take a shot at the top of the ticket.