A Democratic Rush to the Polls? Well... [the DemoRats are lying about turnout]

Washington Post ^ | 2.8.04

[ambrose]

A Democratic Rush to the Polls? Well . . .

By Paul Farhi Sunday, February 8, 2004; Page A05

Democratic Party officials have been crowing about heavy voter turnout in the first nine primaries and caucuses. In a theme picked up widely by the news media, party types have said the voting totals indicate that Democratic voters are fired up, which bodes well for the eventual nominee's chances against President Bush in the general election.

[snip]

Besides which, it takes a bit of glass-half-full thinking to describe voter turnout this year as "high" or even a "record," as Democratic officials routinely do. Growth in a state's population may mean more people voted overall, but the percentage of eligible voters who actually bothered to go to the polls has been shrinking for years.

A record number of people went to the polls in Iowa, for example, but in percentage terms, the turnout of eligible voters was about the same as in 1988. In Oklahoma, twice as many people voted in the primary last week compared with in 2000 -- but that was only 12 percent of the eligible population, which represents a 30 percent decline from 1992 and 1988. Just 9.8 percent of eligible voters showed up in Missouri, again about a third fewer than in 1988. Arizona and Delaware turned out a dismal 6 percent of eligibles, neither close to a record.

[snip]

[jocon307]

I saw a mention of this in an Eleanor Clift piece that was basically on another subject. But my thinking is, are they comparing this to dem turnout last time? Because that was Gore v. Bradley and Bradley didn't last too long. THe time before was Clinton unopposed (IIRC) and the time before that was Clinton vs. whoever (I can't recall at all, except I think Tsongas won NH).

This time they had 9 (nine!) contenders, at least 7 (seven!) of whom were plausible candidates. It's a good sign for democracy that turnout was high. But I imagine if Kerry is seen to have it sewn up turnout will drop off percipitously. It means nothing about Bush or November at all. That race ain't happening now.

I really wouldn't want to go to the track with these pundits, ever!

[MJY1288]

I understand that Primary elections draw the Party faithful to the Polls, but the total number of voters turning out to vote in the Dem Primaries, seem awfully low.

In the New Hampshire Primary, Republicans who voted for the unchallenged George W. Bush was more newsworthy to me, I can't remember the total number of Republicans who voted, but it was significant, considering the insignificance of having to conduct a primary for a shoe in

[Texasforever]

98,000

[MJY1288]

And I believe there was 180,000 democrats who voted in New Hampshire, Correct?

[Texasforever]

And I believe there was 180,000 democrats who voted in New Hampshire, Correct?

I'm not sure. The only reason I remember the GOP count is that some of the ABB crowd were crowing about the 6,000 votes for some garage mechanic or some such silliness that was running against Bush.

[onyx]

What did Oscar Wilde say? "There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Works for me and apparently for the democrats and GOP also.

[weegee]

In one of the primaries, the "Republican" challenger appeared to be RINO. He made a gig out of selling antiBush shirts that were also "peace" wear, Enron scandal, etc. etc. (all leftist talking points). As if Rats won't register to vote in a Republican primary (cough cough, McCain2000, cough cough).

[Texasforever]

Yeah I remember now. It got all of the FR "dump Bush" contingent hot and bothered about some kind of "message" it was sending to Bush.

[quantim]

Voter turnout falls short of original expectations

Saturday, February 7, 2004

BY PATRICIA MONTEMURRI AND KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRES STAFF WRITERS  <EXCERPTED>

The turnout for Michigan’s Democratic caucuses came nowhere near what planners had first predicted. About 150,000 people participated, either by Internet, mail or in person, but that fell far short of original estimates of 400,000 voters.

On Saturday, voters said their votes were motivated by which candidate offered the best chance of booting George W. Bush out of office, and others said they were motivated because they were angry – not only at Bush, but at the Democratic candidates who didn’t spend much time campaigning in Michigan.  http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm18362_20040207.htm

[GROOVY]

great article, I really did buy that garbage about record turnout. In fact, I have heard a few mentions about the turnout being so large that they did not have enough ballots. I guess they are using a few improperly prepared polling places as spin for their agenda..

[b4its2late]

They're saving the dead democrats for the real election....