US voters flock to polls as Democratic control uncertain

Campaign dollars from across US have flowed into Pennsylvania and other battleground states in record amounts, where politically diverse populations don’t give either party a lock on elections.

November 3, 2010 00:28
4 minute read.
A VOTER scratches his head as he votes in Vermont

US voter scratches head 311. (photo credit: AP)

PHILADELPHIA – Mike Branhut knew it would be an uphill battle to recruit Republican votes at the predominantly Jewish Saligman House for seniors. But that didn’t stop him from showing up at 6 a.m. Tuesday to help set up voting machines in the recreation hall of the apartment complex, and handing out flyers that touted Republican candidates.

“The building I work in is mostly retired Jewish voters,” said Branhut, a maintenance man in the complex.


The power in the hands of Pennsylvanians – and the national spotlight on their preferences – seemed to boost turnout early in the day, including at the Saligman House voting station. One official said that, as of noon, the voter turnout was even higher than in the 2008 presidential election.

Though it’s rare that a turnout during a midterm election tops that of presidential elections, several polling sites reported very high turnout for an off-year.

By press time at midday, voter participation in the northern Philadelphia suburb of Cheltenham Township was on track to reach 65 or even 70 percent – a third more than usual, according to election monitor Mitchell Zygmund-Felt.

“There has clearly been more participation and earlier turnout,” he said. “It’s a terrific turnout.” He felt “the amount of spending, and the amount of publicity, and the amount of noise for [these elections] have all motivated people to come out.”

Zygmund-Felt said the Jewish community, which makes up a significant percentage of the area, was particularly energized by the emphasis the two US Senate campaigns gave to Israel.

Still, pocketbook politics were dominating the election, even among many Jewish voters. “Israel is an important issue, but I think social security is a more important issue.” So opined Burt Siegel, a former executive director of the local Jewish Community Relations Council and a lifelong Democratic activist, describing how the older Jewish voters in the Philadelphia area would likely react.

And nationwide, economic concerns were expected to give Republicans the 40 additional seats needed to take over the 435-member House of Representatives – and possibly, the 100-member Senate.

Anger at government spending and continuing high employment fueled the conservative Tea Party movement; the latter endorsed Pennsylvanian Republican Pat Toomey over Democrat Joe Sestak in their race for the US Senate.

And the Tea Party pulled off several primary wins, with many established candidates embracing, at least in part, its deficit-cutting, anti-tax agenda.

A Republican takeover of even one branch of government would put a major crimp in Obama’s domestic priorities; the president is already facing difficulty and flagging popularity.

But it would have less effect on Obama’s foreign policy, over which the executive branch has more power and is given more deference.

The Republicans most likely to take over Democratic seats, including those of a few Jewish members, are largely seen as strongly supportive of Israel, and tough on Iran. However, differences have emerged over the issue of foreign aid, which many Republicans, particularly those connected with the Tea Party movement, would like to see curtailed.

Several influential Republicans have said that Israel’s aid could be considered in a separate category to protect its funding, but the suggestion has raised the hackles of some in the pro-Israel community.

The backers of Joe Sestak, hoping to win over the Jewish community, have used Pat Toomey’s votes against aid to Israel (when Toomey served in Congress) as a major line of attack, while Toomey supporters have rejected the notion that these votes were directed against Israel rather than spending excesses. Toomey supporters have countered by attacking Sestak for his affiliation with the progressive J Street lobby, with national organizations weighing in.

Campaign dollars from across the US have flowed into Pennsylvania and other battleground states in record amounts, where politically diverse populations don’t give either party a lock on elections.

The money was largely spent on advertising, which in Pennsylvania, became nasty. Many voters, including Paul, said it turned them off the candidates.

“People didn’t like the campaigns. When the commercials came on, you hit mute,” she said. “I thought about not voting period – but you can’t complain if you don’t vote.”

Related Content

October 16, 2019
Twenty intact sarcophagi discovered in Egypt


Cookie Settings