Bush got more votes in California than Kerry did!!

http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/00.htm ^

[No Dems 2004]

Just an interesting tidbit I noticed while perusing the results of the CA primary.

GW Bush received 1,949,746 votes, while Kerry received only 1,764,436. Sure, I know the President was unchallenged while Kerry had competition, but even all the Dem voters combined didn't tally that far ahead of President Bush. I though California was unwinnable for the President and that they were turning out in droves to 'send him a message'.

LOL

[No Dems 2004]

I only investigated California - any other interesting results from the other states?

[finnman69]

interesting.

[Prime Choice]

I don't want to seem like a naysayer here, but Bush did run unopposed. It's only natural that he'd get more votes. Kerry's numbers were diminished by votes that went to Edwards, Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, et al.

[AzSteven]

I don't know what CA's rules are for non-Dems voting in the primary. I think CA has a larger number of lefty 3rd-party registrants (as a percentage) than most other states, so these folks would not be able to vote in the primary but would certainly vote against Bush in the general. Add in the usual boatload of Libertarians, Constitutional Party and other 'protest vote' voters, and I fear GW will have difficulty winning CA.

He might pull it off, but I am not optimistic (though I actually am pretty optimistic that he will win reelection, probably with 40 states and more than 51% of the popular vote).

[MattMa]

Of the possible 15.4 million registered voters in California 29.35% voted; 16.72% voted for a Democratic candidate, and 12.63% voted for Bush yesterday.

[Bikers4Bush]

Ohio unofficial results:

Republican Presidential At-Large: March 2, 2004
Unofficial Results

Bush 778,033


Democratic Presidential Race: March 2, 2004
Unofficial Results

Total Votes
Clark 12,285
Dean 30,186
Edwards 407,386
Kerry 617,945
Kucinich 107,391
LaRouche 3,908
Lieberman 14,298

[DM1]

"He might pull it off, but I am not optimistic (though I actually am pretty optimistic that he will win reelection, probably with 40 states and more than 51% of the popular vote).
"
God I hope that you are right. Just curious but what brought you to this conclusion? I am getting jittery and would like reassurance

[PetroniDE]

Considering that the GOP nomination is unopposed, that would depress turnout in GOP primary. Since the Dems had a contested primary, their turnout was expected to be higher.

What is the total DEM vote versus Bush? If that is close, then maybe CA is in play. Remember, many Bush supporters did not case ballots since his nomination is a "given".

[Jim_Curtis]

I don't want to seem like a naysayer here, but Bush did run unopposed
----
Yeah, but why did Republicans show up in such large numbers to vote for Bush when there was no competition? I can see why Democrats show up because they are looking for a candidate. Were there some other issues on the ballots?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

There were some important ballot measures on the ticket in CA so this is not as good news as might first appear. I think the GOP did have a good turnout all things considering, and the fact that Arnold is in the Governors Mansion will hurt the Dems considerable, particularly in terms of money. But I think California is still a good bet for Kerry this fall.

[jackbill]

I suspect that a lot of Republicans, who otherwise wouldn't have bothered to vote in an uncontested election (Bush), went out to vote for the controversial Questions and to elect an opponent of Boxer.

[heleny]

I don't know what CA's rules are for non-Dems voting in the primary. I think CA has a larger number of lefty 3rd-party registrants (as a percentage) than most other states, so these folks would not be able to vote in the primary but would certainly vote against Bush in the general.

Voters registered with no party ("Declined-to-State") may request a version of the primary ballot of a party that allows it. The nonpartisan voting Republican ballot did not allow me to vote for Bush. But, if I had requested a nonpartisan voting Democrat ballot, I could have voted for their candidates for President because the Democrat party chose to allow DTS voters to help select their presidential candidate.

As of September 30, 2003, registration by political party was as follows in California:

43.6% Democrat
35.3% Republican
 5.0% Other
16.1% Declined to State

[colorado tanker]

From what I've seen, turnout was low, particularly in comparison to GOP numbers from four years ago when the pubbies had contested primaries. Just confirms that Kerry is a default candidate that his own base doesn't find very exciting.

[Lurking Libertarian]

California had a number of important ballot issues yesterday (Arnold's $15B bond issue among them) that brought out republican voters.

[AzSteven]

A combination of factors lead me to think this (Bush winning with 51% of vote):

1. The country is still rather divided as it was in 2001, but a lot of the 'soft middle' independents are still pretty scarred by 9/11, and are not going to be enamored with Kerry's past anti-Intel stance.

2. The mass media remains liberal-biased, but there is a much greater awareness of this bias in the general public. It will be harder for the liberal media to shield Kerry and attack Bush in 2004 than it was for them to shield Gore and attack Bush in 2000.

3. Kerry's best publicity days are now behind him. He has had three months of weekly headlines "Kerry Wins!". That is gone now.

4. Most important - the Bush/GOP advertising machine is about to roll, and from the money amounts I head read about here, the term 'juggernaut' would be a good description. Despite his rhetoric, I strongly doubt Soros has the moral courage to actually invest the bulk of his wealth to counter that advertising, and to be honest if he does he will become a major issue in the race. Soros will not stand up well to public scrutiny.

I am optimistic, but the world is not fixed. The situation might be much different in three months; something bad could still happen in Iraq, or a terror attack could tank the economy again. Alternately, we might get Osama in three months and get another quarter of 6%+ economic growth, at which point the wet thuds of Democrats jumping off of roofs will drown out all other sounds in Washington.

[heleny]

Of the possible 15.4 million registered voters in California 29.35% voted; 16.72% voted for a Democratic candidate, and 12.63% voted for Bush yesterday.

The numbers have been updated since you looked.
From http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/status.htm:

Of the 15.1 million registered voters in California (15,091,160):

38.8% of registered voters voted (5,856,371).

18.13% of registered voters voted for any of the 10 Democrat Presidential candidates (2,736,198, or 46.7% of the turnout).
12.92% of registered voters voted for Bush (1,949,746, or 33.3% of turnout).

[DM1]

i hope that you are right i really cannot stand that smug pretentious liberal Kerry
thanks for getting back to me

[mewzilla]

My entire county is Upstate NY had only 1500+ Dems voting yesterday. The machine I voted on yesterday finished the day with less than two dozen votes registered on it. And not because it was broken.

[mewzilla]

See my post #18. I remembered you were asking about turnout this morning. Those numbers are from my neck of the woods :)

[going hot]

Were there some other issues on the ballots?

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

There were 4 very important propositions on the ballot, as well as picking someone to go against boxer this November.

The props got a lot of publicity, and stirred a large amount of for/against movement. Naturally, while at the booth, repub voters also cast a vote for the Prez.