Voter turnout did not spike upward in the 2008 general election.  Instead, it remained essentially flat.  

One of Michael Medved's recently reported big lies about the last election was brought into sharp focus recently by the release of voter statistics by the US Census Bureau.  The lie he referred to was that voter turnout had shot up markedly during the 2008 election and that the new, exciting candidate on the left had mobilized the American public to participate as never before.  What was the conclusion of the Census Bureau?  That turnout was essentially unchanged; that moderate increase in turnout among some groups was offset by decreased turnout in others.  

For years American political scientists have fretted about what they have called a "depoliticized society" a society in which voter turnout is generally less than in other nations such as in Europe or South America.  Of course, US elections are generally less hostile than in other nations, and less marked by violence.  One wag I encountered described the situation in South America thusly:  Revolution is the national sport from which the people occasionally take time out for a football (soccer) match.  I, for one, believe that a society that votes less, but votes intelligently, and avoids political violence is the better one.  Whether or not the people voted intelligently in 2008 is another question.  

Then, whether the public voted for a candidate who was so devastatingly intelligent is still another question.  In fact, the short time since January 2009 has proved that the majority has undoubtedly voted for a con-man, who is less intelligent and less educated than most, but who is very clever at making people believe otherwise.  A large number of people have prospered by observing P.T. Barnum's maxim that there is a sucker born every minute.  Barack Obama is obviously another one of them.  

Meanwhile, What is probably the most telling statistic in the overall panel of results obtained by the Census Bureau is seen in the reasons for not voting.  In 2008 the number of people who declined to vote because they "Did not like candidates or campaign issues" was 12.9 %.  This is much higher than the 5.5 % in 1996, or and more than marginally higher than the 9.9 % in 2004.  Consider the possibilities if those people had voted.  Minnesota might have been spared the agony of a contested election and the embarrassment of Al Franken representing their state.  Other close elections might well have swung significantly, and most important of all, the Republican Party might have taken the White House.  

It was common discussion topic among Conservatives here in the Houston, Texas area whether you would hold your nose and vote for McCain, or stay home and sit on your hands.  It is also common knowledge that a lot of people cast their vote for McCain because they were really voting for Sarah Palin.  I was one of those voters.  

Another extremely interesting fact was that the largest increase in voting activity came from the youngest age bracket sampled.  These voters are credited with helping to move the election toward the Democrats, and now they may be the one's being slapped, figuratively speaking, by way of the government's plans to increase spending out of all proportion with the past, and thereby leave today's youth and tomorrow's as well to pay the bill.   It is a classic case of biting the hand that fed you.  Democrats should know better, but have never learned this lesson because they have rarely been held to account for this kind of conduct.  It is time that they did.  

Meanwhile, Conservatives would be well served to take note of the fact that playing "democrat lite" has not paid off for them, and probably cost them the election in 2008.  They need to concentrate on rebuilding the Reagan style center-right coalition.  Getting rid of some of the old dead wood, and moving toward promising youth may be a start.  The party must play a role in preventing the wrong people from running in the future.  Otherwise we may end up with John McCain trying for the brass ring one more time; a surefire recipe for disaster.