2008 Voter Turnout: Lots and Lots More Democrats

Ahh memories-
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/06/record-turnout-not-so-much/
.
KT and Gans a month ago-
"Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004."
"Americans who cast ballots for president in this year's presidential election will reach between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month"

archive here:
.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking
.
It's november 20th, top of the list.

P-NNTO, I was wondering about that too. Were the initial numbers wrong or did Republican turnout drop? Or both? Or maybe - as Paul Dirks suggested - some of these Democrats used to be Republicans.

I think it was just a matter of wanting to rush out a contra-storyline story, Rose. "Lots of people at the polls? No there wasn't"
I was just having some fun with it.

An archive that goes further back.
.
http://inworldstudios.com/vs/
.
Particularly good are John Dean, Rick Perlstein, KT solo, the first Cliff Schecter and NBER head Jim Poterba.

I was just wondering what the real story is. If in fact Republican turnout did sharply decline - which some people were predicting - I think that's an interesting story.

The Borgen Project has informative statistics on addressing global poverty.

$30 billion ends world hunger
$550 billion is the US Defense budget

This organization has the ability, resources, and policy-makers to suppress the threat of global poverty by enacting legislation here in the US, which is tied to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals. Please support organizations such as The Borgen Project so that we may rid the world of poverty.

This reminds me of 2 things. First, my stomach turning watching Bush proclaim "politicol capitol" and how he was going to spend it. He ran a severe deficit, as we all know.
.
Second, my theory that he was even reelected being due to so many citizens giving up and not bothering to vote. I used to scoff at the notion addage that "every vote counts". I don't anymore.

Rose, Bush got 62,040,610 in 2004 McCain got 59,930,180

Oh I should have added BHO received 69,460,098

dunedweller # 20, I could not agree more. The depth of knowledge here leaves me sometimes hesitant to voice my opinion. But I do anyway.

I would be interested to see early voting correlations. I think working with the DNC to consolidate and extend early voting is the single most effective thing Democrats can do to lock in its current electoral advantage.

pour, this may be useful
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

Thanks formerly. I should also add that reading and participating here has made a difference in my communication skills on the dais - I'm becoming more articulate and concise when making my points. Unfortunately it hasn't helped my spelling at all.

@ P-NNTO - Thanks; clearly early voting was a big factor in GA and NC being at the top of both increased and overall turnout. Missouri has NO early voting: my hunch is that getting it in place would have made the difference in that state for the Democrats.

jay: What i believe is going on with the pumping of the Blago/Obama connection is an attempt to insert "balance." They need to run some negative stories, even if they are inaccurate or inconsequential.
.
On that point, digby has a barn burner up:
.
The other concerning thing is that both Brewer and Stoddard seem to be banking on the public validating their obsession by losing faith in Obama. It's possible, but in no way is it assured. And the inevitable result of that is to make the press all the more determined to find something that will. They will come to see the president as having some sort of illegitimate hold on the public which must be broken. If it doesn't take with this scandal, the press will harbor resentment and jump on the next one with even more fervor.

Republican turnout did sharply decline - which some people were predicting
.
They picked Palin to prevent this. Dirks was right. (I think it was Dirks. It wasn't me.) McCain should have said eff it to his advisors, let's roll the dice, won a floor fight over Lieberman as veep, separating from the wingnuts. Turnout woulda been just as bad. But he might have picked up independents. Pitching to the base was a losing strategy.
.
What will be remembered from this campaign was McCain's embrace of the daily news cycle and Obama's rejection of it.

Digby asks a very good question:
.
"Two more things stuck out at me about that exchange. First, Brewer brings up something that I've now heard half a dozen times on MSNBC by various talking heads: reporters are "taking a lot of heat" for not being aggressive enough toward Obama. Taking heat from whom?"
.
Not only from whom but what sort of heat? Angry emails or phone calls from their masters on the right? You know full well its not coming from the left because complaints from the left are not considered "heat." They are just complaints from people that do not understand how the press works.

From over at the Daily Howler:
.
"Let us repeat what we've told you before. There is no way to understand this group without understanding a basic fact: Your “press corps” is a D-plus elite—our slowest, dumbest professional cohort. For the record, we've been surprised by the way they've behaved in the ten days since the Blago tale hit. They've been dumber—and faker—than we would have dreamed. Nothing derails their sad culture."
.
Oh and the rest will have you rolling in the floor.
.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Pintortwo wrote: The increased dem turn-out is obviously the result of left-wing-community-agitation-group ACORN's campaign of voter fraud in support of radical Obama.... How many dead people voted?

Well, here in Illinois, I personally decided to vote for Barack Obama at least 3 times. I kinda see a lot of me in that guy....

Thanks gunny. We had a lot of discussion about that crowd in KT's last thread. It would be better if no one listened to them, but sadly far too many do.

P-NNTO, thanks for the info.
--
jayackroyd, I actually think Palin was the right choice, but they should have started prepping her earlier in the summer. I don't think the pregnancy would have prevented her from spending 20 hours a week learning basic facts about the constitution and foreign policy. McCain-Lieberman would not have won significantly more independents and they would have hemorrhaged support in the base. That could have been a Dukakis-style loss.
--
Anyway McCain is the one who bears the most responsibility. They were not doing that badly before McCain's public meltdown with the economic crisis. Sure the overall economic and political environment was unfavorable for the Republican party, and Obama ran a solid campaign, but McCain's character flaws were largely responsible for the scale of his loss. Wasn't that the line in the un-aired Wright ad? Character matters.

"jayackroyd, I actually think Palin was the right choice."
.
Rose-the entire time I watched Palin during the campaign I kept getting this feeling that she really is a faker and not really a republican. She not only did not know basic government she did not even have the party's basic standard talking points down.

I think Palin was the perfect choice. By Repugs drowning in their own bile. Last ditch effort. It didn't work.

My instant take on Palin was that she was for down ticket energizing as this was going to be a top of the ticket loss. After all was said and done I'm not sure I was wrong.