Posted on 06/26/2005 8:20:21 PM PDT by flixxx
Reading the signs from voter turnout By Michael Barone
To judge from the mainstream media, George W. Bush and the Republicans are in trouble. Bush's job ratings are lower–though just a bit lower–than they were during the 2004 campaign. Congress's job rating has fallen sharply since the beginning of the year. The mainstream media have been giving lavish coverage to the Democrats' pummeling of Bush and the Republicans on issue after issue–the struggle over confirmation of appellate federal judges, the fight over the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, the supposed ethics problems of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the charges by Amnesty International and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp is another gulag. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean has been lambasting the Republicans in what even some Democrats consider extravagant language.
Yet polls are one thing and election results are another–as the 2004 campaign showed. And one thing the polls can't measure is turnout. In the 2004 election, turnout proved to be crucial. Total turnout was up 16 percent from 2000–a historic increase. John Kerry received 16 percent more votes than Al Gore did in 2000. George W. Bush received 23 percent more votes than he did four years before. The mainstream media devoted much attention to Democratic turnout efforts–a legitimate story–and in fact the Democratic turnout drive was very successful. But the Bush Cheney '04 turnout drive, to which the mainstream media gave very little coverage, was even more successful.
In my view, the big question about the 2006 and 2008 elections will once again be turnout. To judge from the mainstream media coverage in 2005, you might conclude that Democrats, frothing with hatred of George W. Bush, will turn out in large numbers while disheartened Republicans will not.
But the actual election results seem to tell another story. I am referring to the results in the New Jersey and Virginia primary elections held earlier this month. In both primaries, more Republicans voted than Democrats.
In New Jersey, which favored Kerry over Bush by a 53-to-46 percent margin, 298,000 voted in the Republican primary for governor and 229,000 voted in the Democratic primary for governor. That means that Republicans accounted for 57 percent of the total turnout. New Jersey is a party registration state; about 33 percent of registered Republicans voted and about 20 percent of registered Democrats. These results should be used with some caution, however, because the Republicans had a serious contest, between Douglas Forrester and Bret Schundler, while the Democratic nominee, Sen. Jon Corzine, had no serious competition. Nonetheless, this is not a particularly good omen for the Democrats in November.
In Virginia, which does not have party registration, the only office for which both parties had contests was lieutenant governor. Some 169,000 Virginians voted in the Republican primary and 114,000 in the Democratic primary: Sixty percent of the two-party vote was cast for Republicans in a state that Bush carried by a 54-to-45 percent margin. Republicans cast 59 percent of the votes in the three congressional districts in Northern Virginia, which Kerry carried, and 60 percent of the vote in the other eight districts. Democrats got the lion's share of the vote in the black-majority Third District and the Arlington-Alexandria Eighth District, the two districts John Kerry carried; they also got 59 percent of the votes in the Ninth District in southwestern Virginia. But in five districts, 75 percent or more of the votes were cast for Republicans. And in the suburban Northern Virginia 11th District, which Bush carried by only a 50-to-49 percent margin, 62 percent of the votes were cast for Republicans.
This does not ensure that the Republicans will sweep Virginia in the November 2005 Virginia election, but it is a good sign for them–and was a pleasant surprise to some knowledgeable Republican insiders. More important, the Virginia results and perhaps the New Jersey results suggest that the balance of enthusiasm, which worked for Republicans in 2004, may still be working in their favor—mainstream media coverage to the contrary notwithstanding.
#20
Of course, the presidential primary is the only primary being held that day, so there will be much larger deviations between contested and uncontested primaries. In the case of the NJ and VA state primaries, there were plenty of other races to vote on other than just governor.
BTW, Clinton carried AZ over Dole in 1996.
Could you point out where please? I've read the article 3 times now and I still can't find it.
And I don't know that you could really call the Virginia GOP gov primary contested.
I don't mean to argue semantics but 2 candidates for Gov on the Republican ticket for primary makes it a contested race. One candidate for rat gov is not a contest. It's irrelevant, anyways, because I never wrote anything like that nor meant to imply the VA Republican primary was a big contest. I merely wrote that the additional candidate on the Republican ticket generated interest in the primary. In fact it bolsters my argument, if most voters considered Kilgore the de facto Republican candidate. Fitch got 30,000 votes out of 160,000 Republican votes in a primary where everybody knew Fitch couldn't win.
114,000 Virginians voted in the rat primary
169,000 Virginians voted in the Republican primary
subtract 30,000 from the 169,000 Republican voters and you get 253,000 total voters and Kilgore got 55% of the vote "in a state that Bush carried by a 54-to-45 percent margin." Whoopee!!!
I submit the majority of Fitch voters preferred Fitch for a reason...else they would have voted for the certain winner.
By March 26,1996 Bob Dole had sewn up the GOP nomination but 2 months LATER in May Buchanan got 24% in AK, 22% in ID, 19% in IN, and 16% in WV. In June he got 15% In AL, 24% in MO, and even 11% in NJ. Primaries bring out the true believers. Many of those Fitch voters will stay at home during the general elections or vote rd party. On the flip side lots of rat voters never even bothered to vote during the primaries. Why should they? The Gov race is already decided. If they like the almost certain rat candidate for Gov there is no need to vote, unless they have competition for a state legislator seats which is rare. Baron points out the Lt Gov in VA? Is he joking? The Lt Gov race is a title without power. Baron should be ashamed of himself. He is tricking armatures.
Reply: #23
Look, if you really think Fitch drove 30,000 people to the polls, you're free to believe that, but it's pure conjecture worse than anything Barone did and IMO poppycock. Stick a name, any name, on the ballot and some people will vote for them. And even with your "55% math" Kilgore loses a big chunk of Bush voters to Fitch BUT STILL GETS 55% OF THE OVERALL! Where do you think "Fitch voters" will go in November?
This does not ensure that the Republicans will sweep Virginia in the November 2005 Virginia election, but it is a good sign for them–and was a pleasant surprise to some knowledgeable Republican insiders. More important, the Virginia results and perhaps the New Jersey results suggest that the balance of enthusiasm, which worked for Republicans in 2004, may still be working in their favor
Barone bring up two more points in his conclusion: one, that GOP insiders were pleasantly surprised by the primary turnout -- yes, there IS such a thing as 'better than expected' -- and that aside from any quibbling over contested races etc the raw totals still point to an enthusiasm advantage for the GOP -- a contest may be the reason turnout is up, but the interest it generates is a positive in itself.
A-M-A-T-E-U-R
You should really learn to spell your middle name :)
In VA there is no Presidential election, and no US Senate election. The top of the ticket is the Governor race. If the top of the ticket is unopposed there is often no reason for most people to vote in the primaries. 30,000 people came out to the polls to vote for Fitch
...it is possible some people came to the primary to vote on a US Congress race and couldn't even care about the Gov race...
but it is my observation that those voters vote for the front runner 95% of the time. Most Fitch voters did not vote for Fitch because he was on the ballot.
Stick a name, any name, on the ballot and some people will vote for them.
That is simply not true. Primaries are for the true believer. In a race where there is no President and no US Senator race it is even more clear that people who voted for Fitch voted FOR Fitch and nothing else.
Where do you think "Fitch voters" will go in November?
They will not vote in the general election or they will vote 3rd party just as Buchanan voters voted 3rd party or skiped the vote in 1996.
Thank you for correcting my spelling. After rereading my post I want to apologize for being pompous. It is a bad habit I picked up from another Freeper who I respect immensely and therefor I must accept full blame. As a Republican, I would love to celebrate Barone's take on the VA primaries as gospel, but I've watched too many local elections to not ask questions. I think it is disingenuous of Barone to not explain that the Republican primary for Gov included 2 candidates while the rat was unopposed, and there is no Senate candidate.
Thank you for your response
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.