No boosted turnout in this election
posted at 11:10 am on November 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Politico reports that estimates of voter turnout continue to decline in this year’s national election. At first, some predicted a turnout of 137 million. Now the estimates have declined to the point where the percentage of eligible voters would be the same as in 2004, but only if one accepts the idea that we’re still missing millions of votes from the final total:
Despite widespread predictions of record turnout in this year’s presidential election, roughly the same portion of eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 as in 2004.
Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.
He estimated that between 126.5 million and 128.5 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, versus 122.3 million four years ago. Gans said the gross number of ballots cast in 2008 was the highest ever, even though the percentage was not substantially different from 2004, because there were about 6.5 million more people registered to vote this time around.
The historic candidacy of President-elect Barack Obama, as well as the emphasis his campaign put on early voting and Election Day turnout, led many media and academic pundits to speculate that voter turnout this year would increase dramatically. In the run-up to the vote, even John McCain’s top pollster, Bill McInturff, joined other experts in predicting that turnout might surpass 130 million.
I wrote about this on Wednesday, when MS-NBC tried to argue that a 20-million vote deficit between the predictions and the total counted to that point would get erased by the West Coast, even though most of those votes had already been counted. Five days after the election, we still have yet to surpass 123 million votes, and nationwide 99% of all precincts have been counted. Only Washington and Oregon have any significant number of precincts still out (8% and 3%). At worst, that might represent 400,000 uncounted ballots at this stage.
Let’s add the 400,000 to the current vote totals. That would make the vote total 123,176,039 votes cast for the presidential race — far below the estimates given by so-called experts even today. With over 121 million votes cast in 2004 and over six million new voters registered in the last four years, that’s a rather disappointing conclusion to the longest presidential race in American history. That would mean that only a third of new voters bothered to cast ballots, or that a lot of previous voters withdrew from the process this time.
So what happened? Obama got six million more votes than John Kerry and John McCain got slighly under five million less than George Bush. Given the efforts at new registrations, it looks like Democrats turned out well, while a significant chunk of Republicans stayed home. Democratic GOTV efforts worked better than in 2004, but it didn’t produce a landslide. Republican GOTV efforts had been in full swing, but in the end, the ticket simply didn’t produce the excitement needed to carry the GOP to victory.
This doesn’t delegitimize the victory that Barack Obama won on Tuesday, but it does help demythologize it. Obama didn’t inspire any boost in participation in the election process throughout the entire population. The nominal gain seen will probably show as a slight decline in percentage participation among elegible voters from 2004, once the dust settles.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
How about that membership in the Socialist New Party, that Obama and his campaign said NEVER existed?
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
Ouch, more PROOF of that!
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party
Dale in Atlanta on November 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Nonfactor; ah when you’ve disproved all those FACTS, I’ve got about 50 more for you!
Or, are you going to pull a “Chimpy”, and just run away with your tail between your legs, because I just CRUSHED you with FACTS that you cannot Refute?
Dale in Atlanta on November 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I’m glad to hear that, thank you for setting me straight, however there were too many on the right that didn’t vote to make some sort of “statement” and that was foolish on their part.
Liberty or Death on November 9, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Obama certainly does not have a mandate
that republicans failed to show up because they had a canidate that they were luke warm to is a shame
those people should shut their mouths (no complaints) the next 4 years when Obambi tanks this country.
the dems are already waking up with buyers remorse
just wait it will get worse
and obambi has already insulted Nancy Reagan - nice touch
the media is lowering expectations and will triumph the slightest achievement
audiotom on November 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Wait until the GOP has a candidate that can inspire and motivate the base..
with the exception of Wise-Man (snort), I don’t too many people voted for John McCain.. more of a ‘Against Obama’..
DaveC on November 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Racist Democrats?
jgapinoy on November 9, 2008 at 3:52 PM
DaveC on November 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM
more of a ‘Against Obama’
or for Sarah Palin.
kareyk on November 9, 2008 at 3:55 PM
My bet would be the latter. That’s what happens when you run a weak candidate that not only fails to excite the base but thumbs his nose at them. Had it not been for Palin it would have been much worse.
conservnut on November 9, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Comment of the day..
Regardless of who stayed home and who vote against Obama..
he is the president now..
there is work ahead for 2010.. Look forward. don’t forget the past though.. if you are in a congressional district that has an unpopular dem in there, who can run against him in your state senate or house? write a letter to urge that guy to run..
McCain thought he could win by moving the tent to the middle of the campground.. not realizing that the left half was already occupied and made the GOP tent smaller automatically..
that tent needs to be moved back to the right and invite conservatives back in..
DaveC on November 9, 2008 at 4:09 PM
It wasn’t the Republicans that didn’t vote… it was the Conservatives…
The Republican Party just pushed through and is presiding over a hugely socialistic bank buyout, which is NOT WORKING! You can’t run say you are for smaller government when you are SEIZING banks.
At least the Left’s rhetoric matches their actions… we know they are dumb, but the Repubs are saying one thing, then doing another.
I voted for McCain/Palin… or I should say, for Palin… but face it, the ONLY arguement the Repubs had this year is we’re not quite so bad as the other team… and thats a tactic that has lost the last TWO election cycles for the Repubs.
Romeo13 on November 9, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Just from my own casual, unscientific observations on election day, I’d have to agree with beatcanvas. In my district, there were certainly a LOT more new voters in line then there ever were before, and there were by far MANY more black voters than I’ve ever seen. Since I can see the polls from my back window, I was able to watch for most of the day. From the conversations I had while in line, I could only conclude that the majority of black voters were voting for Obama. There was quite a bit of encouragement among blacks to vote for a black American.
If the total number of voters really wasn’t substantially more this year, the decline had to be from conservative voters who felt they couldn’t support either candidate, or that Obama was a shoe-in so why bother.
I hope that conservatives can recognize that they need to unify rather than alienate, and find a way to get folks fired up about a candidate. Winning back minority and youth votes is going to take some effort, and most likely some concessions. We don’t all have to agree on everything– what matters is the end result.
dinobalz on November 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Well we know acorn put in the votes.
christene on November 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM
If the total number of voters really wasn’t substantially more this year, the decline had to be from conservative voters who felt they couldn’t support either candidate, or that Obama was a shoe-in so why bother.
dinobalz on November 9, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I agree that was a partial answer; but there were clearly, aome 20% of evangelicals/conservatives who voted for Obama, according to exit polls; as hard as it is to believe.
I knew some down here in Georgia, and my brother talked to some up in VA; and when you’d talk to them, and ask them to rationalize that vote, given Obama’s blantant Anti-American Racist Marxist Muslim upbringing, they’d just say, usually, “I don’t know, it’s just time to vote for a ‘black’ man”!
The Liberal White Guilt complex, was not “Liberal” only.
And, despite Obama’s Proven Anti-Semitic history and the Anti-Semitic composition of his inner circle, 78% of American Jews voted for him as well!
Debbie Schulssel will go crazy and say the “Jews didn’t elect Obama”; and she’s correct, they did not; but nonetheless; 20% of Conservatives voted for Obama, and 78% of American Jews voted for Obama, so they all HELPED elect Obama.
I can only describe it as Mass Psychosis…..
Dale in Atlanta on November 9, 2008 at 4:49 PM
You can thank acorn & msm for this.
christene on November 9, 2008 at 4:49 PM
PS: I to did not vote for McCain; I voted for Palin as well.
McCain is not only a tool and a fool and buffoon; but he’s never been a “Republican”!
Dale in Atlanta on November 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
It’s okay, I’m sure the 500,000,000 new voters registered by 2012 will all vote Democrat and give the Democrats their so called mandate. If not there is always 2016. After all, term limits are racist.
tyrfing on November 9, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I’ve posted this in other threads, but I think it is good to just show the raw numbers that make this whole situation of an anemic growth in Presidential votes cast much more obvious:
% inc in total Pres votes
1980-1984 +7%
1984-1988 -1%
1988-1992 +15% (Perot runs in 92)
1992-1996 -8%
1996-2000 +9%
2000-2004 +16%
2004-2008 +3.5%
This year was not the worst year for growth in Presidential voting, but not even close to the best. And in 1992, Ross Perot did more to bring in new actual voters than anything done by BHO and his criminal ACORN cronies. And if Palin hadn’t been on the ticket, the growth this year might not have even existed.
But … this seems to be how BHO has made his way through life, having sycophants try and convince people that a 3.5% increase this year is somehow bigger than Bush’s 9% and 16% increases in both of his elections. I guess I forgot to adjust for affirmative action (3.5% —> 35%).
progressoverpeace on November 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Is that accurate? Only 3.5% increase? If you adjust for population increase, one would think the increment would be pretty close to flat, wouldn’t it?
With all the reasons not to support Obama, it’s hard to imaging his winning, even with all the disgruntled conservatives. I was amazed that he took Virginia especially.
By all logic, with such a small increase in the number of voters, it should have easily been a McCain landslide.
dinobalz on November 9, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Yep and yep. Here are the raw Pres vote totals (millions):
1980 86
1984 92
1988 91
1992 104
1996 96
2000 104
2004 121
2008 125
The MSM can’t do basic arithmetic, either …
progressoverpeace on November 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Money talks,..B.S walks,..we will see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVoJZEdM0K4
christene on November 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Did anyone even read the article?
It is a fact that many Republicans stayed home. It is a fact that the polls were correct in regard to Obama’s lead.
Stop with the excuses of the GOTV effort and blaming the media for the lack of enthusiasm. McCain was the problem, and the other failed RINO’s were the problem.
The libs/Dems picked our candidate in the primaries. It was said not to talk about the negatives of McCain before the elction or it will hurt his chances. So now it is AFTER the elction and you still won’t allow a reality check or discussion on the pathetic McCain.
Can talk about him before or after the election? Can’t point the blame on @$#% Republicans before of after, then when?
Unfortunately there is more talk about having just the right “moderate” “across the aisle” candidate, just better than McCain. You morons will never learn.
I don’t blame anyone for not voting for the despicable McCain and having no faith in the corrupted lying GOP.
nottakingsides on November 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM
As I said right after the election,it appeared
the Republican’s didn’t vote or their votes
magically disappeared!
canopfor on November 9, 2008 at 5:39 PM
White guilt, (pseudo)historic vote, superficial reasoning, all in all nobody brought their brain to the polls.
Many keep harping how this election is historical because of the color of a candidates skin. Weak. MLK would be cringing right now. We have just watered down his message.
The history of Obama is going to be the next four years, not an election where people voted someone in because of his skin color. I say that because they certainly did not vote for him with his thin resume. Right?
geckomon on November 9, 2008 at 5:42 PM
In my conservative county, McCain/Palin won only seven out of twenty-nine townships, and those were by a handful of votes. However, the other Republican candidates on the ballot fared very well. Local GOP did what they could to get out the vote for McCain/Palin, but said the enthusiasm just wasn’t there.
JA on November 9, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I believe the turnout for 2008 was roughly the same as 2004. Just under 50% of the vote went to Palin/McCain, but just not enough. Obama/ACORN etc. squeezed for every thing they could get, some folks wants anything but a Republican right now, and some just wanted to vote race. Time will certainly tell. Obama is about to shake up the snowglobe and Lord help us when it all tries to settle.
johnnyU on November 9, 2008 at 7:05 PM
How Obama and the Democrats stole the election
In reviewing the 2008 American elections I am struck by three interlocked sets of issues:
Almost everyone, on both sides, agreed that ACORN was issuing many illegal voter registrations. Democratic side estimates ran to about a million, the more excitable among Republicans saw over twice that many and a rough concensus in the 1.2 to 1.4 million range seemed to emerge.
The major media players, from movie studios and television networks to nationally read newspapers and magazines, heavily favored Obama - and lost market share. Republican movies, print media, and the mostly objective Fox network, in contrast, generally gained market share.
Similarly, crowds at Palin events were huge, energized, and enthused - while Biden couldn’t fill a room and the crowds at Obama events in most of the United States showed small groups of cheerleading enthusiasts along with large numbers of people essentially just voting present.
Election day saw a huge fall off in Republican votes in western states - after the results from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were announced. In those states, however, every report from people actually at voting places showed the expected huge turnout.
But the actual vote counts showed half a million Ohio Republicans didn’t vote.
The situation in Florida, Pennsylvania, and the DC area showed the same pattern: consistent reports of huge advance votes and turnouts, ballot counts at or below averages.
So here’s how I think it was done:
the purpose and/or effect of the ACORN registrations was to influence the public polls to make an overwhelming Democract victory seem inevitable.
How that works is simple and comes as a combination of two related parts: to get 800 valid responses polling companies facing 85% hangup rates had to generate about 9,000 phone numbers and connect to about 5,400 people. If 1% of the population (i.e. about the ACORN membership) preferentially answered polls, they would have shifted the raw results by about 3.5% in Obama’s favor.
polling companies compare the demographic data gathered from the interviewees in their actual sample to population demographics and make any indicated corrections before handing the data over for analysis. Thus if they believe that there are about 2% more democrats in the population then they find their sample, they’ll adjust the raw numbers to match - before passing them on as the sample output for analysis.
Thus ACORN’s combination of fake registrations plus real enthusiasts could shift poll results by up to twice the ACORN percentage: or something in the 5% to 7% range across the board.
In operation these factors produced huge variability in polls, tremendous uncertainty among pollsters (making them more likely to adjust public reports to meet public expectations) and a 5 to 7 percent polling error in Obama’s favor.
Step two was direct vote surpression in critical, early voting, areas and consequent indirect vote surpression in western states as Republicans, told by the media that they had already lost, simply stayed home.
Specifically how the thefts were carried out must have depended on the technologies and processes in place in each county or state, but the key process steps and criteria for success are clear: prepare ballots and auditable documents in advance, report the fake counts early, then later replace the real ballots and auditable materials with the fakes - and the critical condition for success, of course, is access to the reporting process first and materials transportation later.
To a Republican electoral crime on this scale is unthinkable, but it’s in scope for Democrats in general and ACORN in particular - and if you don’t think it happened, try to explain the contradiction between a huge turnout at the polls in the east/central states, and the below average vote total later reported in any other way.
Paul Murphy on November 9, 2008 at 7:05 PM
It’s not a surprise that Obama got many votes simply because of his race. I can understand somewhat– there’s a sense of pride for any group who has “one of their own” elected president. I’d love to see a Native American as president, but not so much that I’d vote for an unqualified person to see it happen.
I understand the feeling of betrayal by the Republican party as McCain wasn’t my first choice either, but I don’t understand the logic of not voting. If you know one of two people are certain to be elected, wouldn’t it be better to vote for the one you hated the least? Is it worth sacrificing the county to make a point? Maybe.
Hopefully the party leaders will conduct a careful study and make the right decision, toward middle of the road to pick up new voters or hard right to re-ignite the conservative core. The former may be the only way to get enough support given the attitude of today’s society. And that’s pretty depressing.
dinobalz on November 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I voted for McCain, but I understand the reasoning of conservatives who didn’t. Many know that amnesty will destroy this nation - and amnesty will be as close to irreversible as legislation gets. To those conservatives, the US was destined to ruin, whether BHO or McCain got in, and many even thought that McCain would be more likely to get amnesty passed as Pres. For those folks, it was a question of the US walking off the plank or running.
This is why so many of us said, during the shamnesty fiasco, that the GOP would be DOA if McCain got the nomination.
There were lots of other problems with McCain, but I think his idiotic shamnesty ideas were the root of the low turnout on the right. Then, when the fool couldn’t stop himself from declaring that his shamnesty would be the FIRST thing he did in office, that probably sealed the deal for many.
Personally, I stopped talking about amnesty for the duration of the campaign (only because I consider Marxist thugs to be bigger threats than most anything else) and just figured that amnesty is going to be a major fight for the life of this nation, anyway. But, even in the best of all possible scenarios now, amnesty will probably go through (with Sen. McCain helping to push it all the way, with a grin) and the US will dissolve no longer than 10 years after.
progressoverpeace on November 9, 2008 at 7:47 PM
After posting earlier about McCain/Palin losing big-time in my conservative county while other Republicans on the ballot overwhelmingly won, I checked the county website for vote totals. It wasn’t the case that some Republicans sat out this time around. Rather, many of them voted for Obama and then voted Republican for the rest of the ballot.
People here tend to be fairly knowledgeable when it comes to politics. We are located very close to the Iowa border, and got to see all the candidates up close and in person during the primaries. McCain and Palin have both made appearances here recently. And many Republicans still chose to vote for Obama. Yikes…now I’m even more depressed about the state of our country.
JA on November 9, 2008 at 8:32 PM
I didn’t Vote..No Regrets and I am totally at Peace with myself :) Sarah Palin almost made the difference for me but I kept seeing Lindsay Graham sniffing around McCain, and I remembered How much I really loathed them both. Also I knew that Illegal Immigration was going to be shoved down my throat by either candidate so I felt a total lack of conscience.. sitting at home Tuesday Nite in my Jammies, taking that last Plea from the “Maverick” aka (the fifth Robo Call that day) I felt justified and knew that the next four years was out of my hands.. literally. Even the “shine” on ManlyRash was starting to fade, His posts slowly giving way to his insecurities…and the day waned on. I did recall(just fleetingly) a Good Man .. Alan Keyes who “Conservatives” for some reason decided that “throwing HIM under the Bus” was just as Okay as “The One” thought throwing His White Mama and some “Reverand Guy” (that the Maverick didnt want mentioned).. (Probably because He had some “Reverand Issues” himself in the past.) I did my part for the Conservative cause.. I didnt vote for One as there wasn’t One running.. nor was there a real Republican choice, outside the VP candidate, Sarah Palin.. and when she runs for President.. I will happily cast my vote for her. Cheers
BeardedLady on November 9, 2008 at 9:29 PM
The GOP ended up with a RINO who had inadequate appeal to the base.
Lesson #1 — It’s time to scrap the open primary in favor of some sort of political party process (caucus/convention) and/or fuss with the scheduling so that more conservative RED states have an early say in the process.
Lesson #2 — forget debates moderated solely by liberals. They are worthless because tough questions for liberals & RINOs are never raised. Which also turns off the GOP base.
droofus on November 10, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Further proof that the refusal of the GOP to run Conservative candidates is killing the party.
In 1980, Regan won by almost 10% even with John Anderson getting 6% of the vote.
In 1984 Reagan won by nearly 20% and won all but Minnesota.
In 1988, G.H.W. Bush, riding on Reagan’s coattails won by almost 10%
In 1992, because of G.H.W. Bush’s refusal to support conservatism, lost to Clinton (let’s not get into any conspiracy about Ross Perot, the figures and history don’t lie)
In 1996 The GOP ran a weak Candidate in Bob Dole and lost by over 9% (even adding Perot’s votes wouldn’t have won Dole the White House)
In 2000 G.W. Bush barely won
In 2004 Bush barely won again
In 2008 the GOP ran it’s most liberal candidate in its history and got spanked even though McCain rode the backs of Sarah Palin and Joe the plummer to some kind of respectability.
The numbers don’t lie folks, the farther that the GOP goes to the left, the worse they do and talking about Reagan Conservatism isn’t governing like a Reagan Conservative.
nelsonknows on November 10, 2008 at 4:33 AM
It’s pretty simple folks, DO NOT vote for a RINO. Support CONSERVATIVES like Jeff Sessions, Bobby Jindal, Duncan D. Hunter, Sarah Palin, just to name a few. Idiots like Graham, McCain, Hagell, and Snow, need to disappear from the GOP. Exactly how many Congressional districts in the U.S. did NOT have a GOP candidate? Nine districts were elected in Commiefornia with NO GOP candidate and 12 others with little or no support from GOP officials including the 23rd District. This has GOT TO STOP!
nelsonknows on November 10, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Palin will re-define herself, she will choose the Reagan path, others will also and we will see a surge in conservatives.
Middle or lef of middle is a loser…
You can’t out left the left, they are experts at it.
right2bright on November 10, 2008 at 9:05 AM
I would be awestruck to see a Native American (qualifed of course) win the presidency. Now that would be historic!
DarkCurrent on November 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM
By the way, did they finally give Missouri to McCain???
NC was practically a perfect split down the middle (all those northern liberal transplants is what helped Obama) and so was Missouri.
The media gladly gave Obama NC, but still holding out on calling Missouri?
Anyone knows what’s going on?
stefystef on November 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]