12/28/2017

Democrat voter registration totals declining in key states

I have seen an earlier story on Colorado, but this story in the Washington Times suggests that the phenomenon is more widespread.  Is this because states are scrubbing the voter roles?  Is it because of the push to reduce vote fraud?  Is it changing allegiances?
. . . The same trend is playing out in Florida, Pennsylvania and other battleground states where Democrats should have been growing their numbers in the age of Mr. Trump, but instead are stumbling. 
They have lost 12,000 registered Democratic voters in Arizona since the presidential election, bringing the number down to 1.2 million. Republicans have lost just 1,000 voters and stand at nearly 1.4 million in the state. . . . 
In Pennsylvania, Democrats held a registration edge of about 800,000 over Republicans — 4 million to 3.2 million — as of Dec. 18. But the number of registered Democrats is down 4.5 percent, while Republicans have lost 2.4 percent. 
In Florida, Democrats hold a registration edge, but their ranks also have also dropped at a faster rate. 
As of Oct. 31, the number of registered Florida Democrats dropped 1.9 percent from last year to about 4.8 million. The number of registered Republican voters fell 0.6 percent, to about 4.6 million. 
Nevada Republicans, meanwhile, have shaved Democrats’ edge from 119,000 voters in October 2016 to about 98,000 as of Dec. 1. 
Former Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, said many registered Democrats are transient in nature and the changes might not necessarily be subtractions but shifts elsewhere. . . .
Democrats in North Carolina lost 3,829 registered voters from February to September. Republicans gained 9,241 and Libertarians gained 1,468, but unaffiliated voters grew by 47,099 registered voters, according to a report from the Civitas Institute, a right-leaning think tank in the state. 
In Nevada, Libertarians gained about 700 voters compared with last year, even as thousands of Democrats and Republicans dropped off the rolls. . . . 

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home