2004 Presidential Election - Page 3

03-05-2004, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by pulque
Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Record lows (A site for NDD)

Numbers

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia... all low...

Primary Turnouts Down

Media Accuracy

Vermont

More

There's more if you want it...

NousDefionsDoc · 03-05-2004, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenhat
Record lows (A site for NDD)

LOL - NOW you've done it!

**Airbornelawyer** · 03-05-2004, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by pulque
Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Republican primary participation has always been higher in numbers in places like S. Carolina. If you compare democratic primaries to democratic primaries you will find that the numbers of participating voters have increased.

Actually, state-by-state, turnout varied. Some states had significantly higher turnouts, some not much higher, and some less.

It is also to some extent misleading to compare changes in turnout. For many of these states, there was no contest in previous years, so turnout was low because there was no point (as the Newsday article implies for NY). It is a logical leap, not necessarily supported by evidence, to ascribe any higher turnout to anger at Bush.

New York: Total turnout for the 2004 NY Democratic Party primary was 673,620. New York's 2000 primary was on March 7, 2000, and turnout was 974,463, so Newsday's blaming low turnout on the time of year is ridiculous. In 1996, Pres. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot so the Democratic primary wasn't held. Newsday's putting it on Kerry already being the presumptive candidate doesn't explain it, as by the 2000 NY primary, Gore had already left Bill Bradley behind too (Gore 66%, Bradley 33%). The main factor is the cost of the NY media market, so no candidate wanted to waste money here. In 2000, it was slightly different in that the Republican field was still open, so there was more attention paid in the NY media to the election in general.

California is also an expensive media market. California, though, had propositions on the ballot as well as a party primary, so there were other reasons to vote besides Kerry vs. Bush. California Democratic turnout was 2,740,023, compared to 2,654,114 in 2000 (Gore 81%) and 2,523,062 in 1996 (Clinton 93%).

For the most part, increased Democratic turnout in certain states seems to reflect the fact that there was a contest for the nomination. Many states held no primary in 1996, as Clinton faced no rival, and had weak turnout in 2000, as the Gore/Bradley contest was either not big in that state or already over.

Looking through a few states where I have data:
- Georgia more than doubled turnout compared to 2000 (which was triple the 1996 turnout).
- Connecticut turnout dropped by a third from 2000, and was slightly less than 1996
- Tennessee turnout was up 71% from 2000 (when Gore took his home state with 92%, only to lose it in the general election), while 2000 turnout was up 56% from 1996, when Clinton was the only candidate
- Oklahoma was up significantly from 2000, but less than 1996
- Delaware tripled from 2000, which had been only slightly higher than 1996
- Arizona 2004 turnout was almost half of 2000 turnout; in 1996 hardly any Democrats voted in the Arizona primary
- Missouri 2004 turnout was up a little over 50% from 2000; there was no 1996 primary
- New Mexico had a caucus; the New Mexico primary is in June. Caucus turnout was 96,704. You can't really compare caucus turnout to primary turnout, but the June 2000 primary had 132,280 and the June 1996 primary had 121,362 Democrats

To discount the Kerry's-already-wrapped-it-up-so-why-bother factor, go back to New Hampshire, when the nomination was still up for grabs: 2004 turnout was 219,246, up 42% from the 154,609 who turned out in 2000. But the 2000 number was up 41% from the 91,974 who turned out in 1996, so it is hard to read much into this. However, I would note that President Bush only got 115 write-in votes for the Democratic nomination, while he had gotten 827 back in 2000

Still, that's an improvement over the 3 write-in votes for Bush (either him or his father) in 1996.

pulque · 03-05-2004, 23:14

GH,

thanks for the links. the point I have in mind is the one made in "Primary Turnouts Down". I agree with the analysis of the problems in taking a ratio using VEP. I believe it could matter which parties are having contests. This is purely in response to the charge of inventing a surge for 2004.

"Record Lows" (1998): LOL.

shootandloot · 03-06-2004, 12:05

I think President Bush will win because I don't believe Kerry does a good job of speaking on his issues. Whenever someone asks what he thinks about a issues, his reply is "well, here's what Bush thinks and here's why he's wrong". In the end, I think too many will be tired of the "Bush-bashing". Secondly, I think the President does a good job of not taking the bait when someone does bash. He has said almost nothing in response to what the candidates were saying about him in the past debates. He even called Kerry to congratulate him on his soon-to-be nomination. People remember stuff like that.

03-06-2004, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by D9
Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote. The dems, it's true, don't have a message and are really just campaigning on anti-Bush rhetoric, but I'm not sure there aren't a lot of Americans who are influenced by this garbage.

I think it will be Bush, but it's not a lock. Another attack, or serious problems in Iraq, could really hurt Bush as well. If the economy falters it could be pivotal as well. I hope it's Bush, but I'm not as positive as some others.

I agree. I don't listen to the polls, I listen to people I work with, associate with etc.
A poll based on their comments gives me concern about Bush winning.
The typical comment is "anything but Bush".
I hope Kerry doesn't select Graham for VP. I think that would affect Florida.

D9 (RIP) · 03-06-2004, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenhat
1. We don't elect Presidents on popular vote. We elect members of Congress on popular vote.

2. Did Gore win the popular vote? It isn't as cut and dried as some would have you believe. As far as I know, a comprehensive count of every ballot has never been done except in Florida (where Bush won).

I understand, I only meant that if someone as bland as Al Gore can manage to run it that close, then I think it's hard to say Bush is a lock this time.

myclearcreek · 03-06-2004, 23:11

In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.

Edited for spelling.

shootandloot · 03-07-2004, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by myclearcreek
In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.

Edited for spelling.

It's the same way in Western Pennsylvania. Democrats get elected to the majority of offices (though I never understand how party affliation matters for a office like the Recorder of Deeds). So we have alot of very conservative Democrats who would fit in more with the Republican party in any other area.

**Bill Harsey** · 03-07-2004, 21:17

uh, this isn't a liberal website? Boy and I'd thought all along...(time to hide, incoming) NDD, if a clinton (yes my Shift key works) gets elected the time after this, you got room for a shop near your location? Answer is BUSH! Reason, a majority of the population here understands that if we get another case of demo-disease that this country is dangerously exposed to whatever would be next by the groups that hate us. We've hit the hornets nest real hard and now isn't the time to back off. I hope this is what the majority of the country thinks...

NousDefionsDoc · 03-07-2004, 21:34

Absolutely sir! Come on down! We won't make any money because I refuse to permit workers to make less than the bourgeoisie, but we can have a grand old time.

Greenhat will be here later to invite you to Thailand - don't listen to him, he oppresses The People and is on The List.

As soon as I deal with the agrarian reform movement in Iowa, I'm starting a cell in Bangcock. Never enough time in the day...

BTW, Greenhat is pretty tough, we might need some smatchets and a blow torch. Maybe a tank or two...GHOSTRIDER!!!!!

**The Reaper** · 03-07-2004, 21:37

I don't think the majority of the people voting in this country do think.

I think that they vote for whoever the Union, preacher, organizer, barber, agitator, or the man who drives them to the polls in the bus tells them to.

It would appear that a lot of people dislike the President intently, and will stop at nothing to defeat him. He does have some high negatives, mostly among Democrats.

This race is for the future of this country, and any man who shirks his duty to see that the right man gets elected is responsible for the consequences that follow.

I do not believe the rumors, but it would not surprise me to see OBL captured or killed in the next few months.

I believe that this will be a close race, the media will work to keep it that way, and that a few key events with the economy, terrorism, etc. could make the difference in this election. The Electoral College and popular votes may disagree again.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

NousDefionsDoc · 03-07-2004, 21:40

Women vote for which ever candidate is cutest.

**Bill Harsey** · 03-07-2004, 21:45

NDD, Thanks! I've seen what a Smatchet looks like and I'm pretty handy with an oxy-acetylene torch in steel up to around three inch thick. (we could break anything on the logging side and got to repair accordingly) . I'm very impressed with your social work and will see what you can do around here, maybe another cell would be in order. I don't want to have anything to do with a tank if D9 is around.

NousDefionsDoc · 03-07-2004, 21:48

Quote:

I don't want to have anything to do with a tank if D9 is around.

As long as its not yellow and have a blade, we should be good.

But good point. No sense in taking unecessary risks. We'll have to recruit him first. He's already in training to be a Liberator of the Oppressed, shouldn't take much.