Jan 09 2008
Dem Turnout Continues To Crush GOP
When we were done with Iowa I noted a very disturbing trend from 2000/2004 to 2008. The trend was enormous gains in Democrat voter numbers while the GOP stayed flat. Here are the numbers I computed after Iowa:
The dems increased turn out by a whopping 89% in 4 years, while the GOP increased theirs by only 28% in 8 years. We don’t have GOP numbers from 2004 because they did not hold caucuses, but the numbers are pathetic. If you average the increase over the period you see 22%/year increase for the dems and 3.5%/year for the GOP.
The sad news has been repeated in New Hampshire which explains why New Hampshire went Blue since 2000. Here are the turnout NH numbers from 2000 and 2008 by party:
2000
Democratic ballots cast: 156,862
Republican ballots cast: 239,523
2008 (Secretary of State prediction)
Democratic ballots cast: 260,000
Republican ballots cast: 240,000
Let me compute the trend numbers again. The Democrats saw an increase of 66% from 2000 to 2008, or an average of 8%/yr increase. Also, in 2000 the Democrat primary voters were 65% of the total GOP primary voters (which tells me the GOP had the vast majority of the independents who make up 44% of NH voters and are a larger segment than either the Dems or GOP).
Now look at the anemic GOP numbers. The percent increase over 8 years is not even worth computing (it is tenths of a percent). But even worse the Dem Voter block is now larger than the GOP – which can only mean a massive shift of independents. Party turnout alone cannot account for those increases in voter-share since 2000. NH is worse the Iowa for the GOP. My guess is this trend will not subside or be an outlier event.
Again I must ask the hardliners in the GOP – do you really think throwing insults at moderates helps???
Update: The final tallies are even worse than the estimates abovw. The GOP numbers did not move at all and the dems had a blow out:
With ballots from all but one small town reporting, an Associated Press count showed 526,671 residents voted in the Democratic and Republican primaries, breaking the previous record for a presidential primary of 396,385 in 2000.
With only the town of Windsor yet to report, there were 287,821 Democratic ballots cast and 238,850 Republican ones.
Looking at the 2000 numbers that is actually a net loss for the GOP – which is pathetic. The new Dem number is 83% increase from 2000, which is right in line with what they saw in Iowa. 83% increase compared to a net loss for the GOP! Even worse, in 2000 Dem primary voters were 65% the size of the much larger GOP turnout. Now in 2008 the GOP is only 83% of the Dem voter turnout. The deniers can pretend this is meaningless – but the math is brutally cold and un-objective. The GOP is dying and it can thank the hardliners who throw insults more than solutions.
And of course these 80+% increases in Dem support while the GOP barely maintains are not due to the physical migration of voters into the states. Besides the ludicrous model of all new residents being Dems only, the fact is neither IA or NH has seen growth at levels that would be reflected in 80% increases in turnouts in primaries (where many people do not vote). I guess denial is a wonderful thing, so many seem to enjoy it.
Raw numbers were up because the Dems were having a cat fight.
I still haven’t yet taken a look at percent turn out but some blogs are talking about outrageous high percentages on the left.
Normal situation averages 17-20% in a primary 30 -45% in a general if you are lucky. Consistent across Dem/Rep/Indep
But I am hearing unconfirmed numbers of above 60% here which should raise eyebrows.
I have seen people throwing out 30% Rep 50% indep and 70% for Dems.
That could all be wrong but if not that is one heck of an abnormal turnout of total registered voters considering the Dems are not miles apart in their positions from each other to warrant that kind of jump.
But I keep telling you that these numbers were NOT Democrats. They are Independents. Many of whom voted in the Republican primary in 2000 and 2004 and are this time voting in the Democratic primary. New Hampshire has a semi-open primary. Independents can vote in EITHER primary and they don’t have to decide which until after they get inside the voting booth … they don’t have to “declare” anything to anyone before walking in that booth.
CP,
folks just don’t want to face the music – especially those who orchestrated this dirge in the first place. The far right destroyed the GOP, but they will never admit it.
But we will all know who put a dem in the WH to finally surrender to Bin Laden. Whether they admit it or not, we will all know.
AJ – You realize you’re a hardliner too? Considering your tone and rhetoric?
You would probably characterize me as “hard right” since my preference would be fence, rule of law, and let the chips fall where they may – however I recognize that it is only a preference. You no longer represent your position as a preference – it has become your maginot line. If you refuse to work with others who are tend conservative but are not as open minded as you are about issues like illegal immigration, then it is you, just as much as they, who are putting a Dem in the WH.
NED
Independents are trying to pull both parties toward center. The ones voting in the Republican primary are voting McCain. The ones voting in the Democratic primary are voting Obama. In a contest of McCain vs. Clinton, then McCain and the Republicans will probably get the Independent vote. In a test of Obama against any Republican, Obama probably gets the Independent vote but it would be split if the Republican nominee is McCain.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, the Independents go Republican … they Independents are “anybody but Hillary” at the moment. Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ George W. Bush. W got elected on his Dad’s goodwill. Hillary on Bill’s goodwill.
If the election is close and Hillary wins by less than 2%, then the same kind of sour grapes that hurt “W” are going to work against Hillary.
Hillary got lucky yesterday because of a loophole in New Hampshire election law. She could bus people up from Mass. who could register and vote that day in New Hampshire.
Nice try Devil….
You clearly have no idea my positions on immigration (or Dubai Ports or Harriet Miers) and what my point is. By flaming all who disagreed with their narrow views the far right purified the GOP into permanent minority status. That phenomena has nothing to do with my views. I am noting voting trends – not my own position representing one tiny vote.
OK – so your response is to flame back? Your tone and rhetoric are a lot more personal than “noting trends” would suggest.
NED
NED, lets put it this way. By shooting down the Senate immigration compromise bill, the Republicans have now assured themselves that they are going to get a much worse bill from a House/Senate with an even larger Democrat majority and a Democrat President to sign it.
They won that battle but they lost the overall war because of it. Now the consequences of blocking the passage of immigration reform is being felt by Republicans getting kicked out of office or Republicans who FAVOR such reform being elected.
Being “right” doesn’t matter if it makes you irrelevant.
Ned,
I am an independent. I am not running for office, I do not represent the GOP, I am not pure enough to be a conservative….
What do you want? You come on my site and claim I am hardliner and you want me to what…..Agree? I have views. I am open to negotiate. I get called “traitor”, “RINO” (now that’s funny since I am not an R), “Quisling”, etc because I don’t agree with the Amnesty Hypochondriacs (and yes, that is a humorous yet accurate jab – as opposed to being called a “shill, corrupt, traitor”).
I am simply pointing out the GOP tactics of slinging insults instead of solutions is killing them. Go ahead, shoot the messenger!
You’re not the first nor the last to do so. And you all get the same response.
The irony on the Miers nomination is that all the flaming insults at those who disagreed with the far right did nothing to sink Harriet. She sunk because her answers to the judiciary committee were sub par for a Supreme Court justice. All the moderates were trying to do was give her a chance. I will never forget the looks on Specter’s and Leahy’s faces when they finally had to admit that she was not qualified. They wanted so much for her to make it. The obvious mistake that GWB made in nominating Harriet only exposed the far right purifiers for whom they were; destructive anti-Rino purifiers. They were only using poor Harriet to futher their purification agenda.
Ned,
BTW I cannot help but note I am talking trends and groups and you came on my site and commented on me personally. It is clear you feel my comments INCLUDED you – but I never once mentioned you by name in my assessment.
You seem to feel guilty about my general observations, like they might just apply to you.
MarkN,
Miers never got a chance to sit in front of the Senate as I recall. Where did you see her get a Senate hearing on her USSC nomination?
AJ:
It is a standard written questionnaire a nominee completes before their hearings are scheduled. Her answers on the questionnaire were so sub par the SJC returned it to her for a do over. Her second chance was not much better and so Specter and Leahy pulled the plug. But it was based on merit not on some RINO status. They really wanted to give Miers a chance.
My point is that the far right was correct is pointing out that Miers was not qualified but their campaign against her did not have to be so vitriolic.
MarkN,
Sorry, but that is the lamest dodge I have ever heard in my life. The anti-Miers crowd were hysterical and ugly. If she was going to go down anyway (which I agree with BTW) then there was no need for starting up the civil war and purity putsche.
Bush making a minor (and correctable) mistake is no excuse for the poison that came out of the far right and never stopped.
Sorry, there is no excuse for self destructive and bad behavior – no matter what the ‘motivation’ behind it. The far right was not correct – they were destructive and we are just now seeing the extent of the damage.
AJ,
Don’t you think the voter turnout ratio is mostly demographics, plus an interesting intraparty race?
What concerns me is the price Repubs will pay in the southwest for being so stiff on immigration. I wish Romney hadn’t picked Bay Buchanan and McCain wasn’t disavowing “amnesty”, so categorically.
Sticking to principle is a good thing but solving the immigration problems is more process than principle.
AJ:
You seem to be off your game today. I believe that was the point I made before.
My quote from above was “they were only using poor Harriet to further their purification agenda.”
CP – I agree, that’s why I supported the last version of the bill. Sometimes nothing is better than something. This time, something was better than nothing.
AJ – I guess what I want to know is, are you open to compromise on the issues you claim others are not?
Leaving aside my perceptions of what you’re saying, do you feel as though the politics of this argument (illegal immigration) are contrived to produce a bitter partisan result?
It seems that there is a strong majority that is for the fence, and a similar majority that isn’t for mass deportation, yet somehow we are unable to find any common ground and get something accomplished?
Even if someone (like McCain, for instance) laid out the actual plan (that I think he now agrees to) that is essentially, build the fence first, and deport felons, then worry about ‘normalization’ or whatever else you want to call it. Wouldn’t that sell? Meanwhile, the feds punted and the states (see AZ for example) stepped up to deal with the problem.
Anyway, AJ, I just am interested in knowing if you still have any interest in ‘partnering’ with conservatives?
In any case – I think you could probably figure out my position on immigration from that, so for the record – I didn’t oppose Miers until she proved she wasn’t worthy, and I was FOR the ports deal. FWIW.
NED
The Republicans royally missed up on their handling of the Miers nomination and the Abu Dhabi port deal but then the Democrats forced them to play into it. Probably caught the Republicans by surprise and regretted it afterwards. Guess the Democrats knew how to play the game far better than the Republicans.
It’s interesting that these primaries have the front page attention and Congress is really quiet these days. Are they not producing anything? And intentionally to ensure the votes go their way?
AJ, I agree with much of what you say but I think you are overreaching with the New Hampshire data. Keep in mind that the 2000 Dem primary was basically non-competitve. Gore was a two term VP, he was the incumbent. That primary had no “juice.” Comparing 2008 with 2000 is not instructive. Also, keep in mind that New Hampshire was the only “red” state that went “blue’ in 2004, despite the fact that Bush gained everywhere else. The Massachusetts exodus of mostly Democrats would explain what’s going on in New Hampshire. And you can’t discount the excitement that a female running against a black male is generating.