Not only that; think of the legions of people 14-17 years old who will be of voting age by 2012.Originally posted by: Farang
So an 18% increase in turnout among 13% of the population that voted, what, 92-8 or so for Obama? That isn't something to scoff at.
You didn't look hard enough.I don't see anything interesting here.
Hardly desperate, and not a grasp at anything...for months we have heard about the Obama ground game...the rise in voter registration...a magical shift of the country to the left.The only thing I see is a desperate grasp at trying to downplay the thumping the Republicans took this year at the hands of Obama, and still trying to find something negative to cling onto.
The college aged crowd eventually joins the workforce, at which point GOP fiscal conservatism becomes rather appealing...if the GOP can regain the mantra of fiscal conservatism, they will find their message again.The GOP is essentially non-existent to the college age crowd.
They broke for Obama...that does not correlate to a break for Democrats in every election from now till eternity.The booming Latino population will only get larger, and they also break for Obama 70/30.
What numbers are you looking at...there was a 2% increase from 2004 to 2008.So an 18% increase in turnout among 13% of the population that voted, what, 92-8 or so for Obama? That isn't something to scoff at.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
It's bad enough Projo the clown is wrong but, positing that his assertion is correct... what the fuck is his point?
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
What numbers are you looking at...there was a 2% increase from 2004 to 2008.So an 18% increase in turnout among 13% of the population that voted, what, 92-8 or so for Obama? That isn't something to scoff at.
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Current Obama total is 62,975,682
Almost 3 million more than Dubya in 04.
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Current Obama total is 62,975,682
Almost 3 million more than Dubya in 04.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
CNN
Obama: 64,975,682
And counting...
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Originally posted by: jpeyton
CNN
Obama: 64,975,682
And counting...
Good luck getting the OP to update to reflect that. The problem is that the real numbers more or less totally disprove the theory behind the entire thread.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Last updatehttp://politicalticker.blogs.c...ightly-higher-than-04/
end of threadA new report from American University?s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday?s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago ? or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.![]()
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Originally posted by: jpeyton
CNN
Obama: 64,975,682
And counting...
Good luck getting the OP to update to reflect that. The problem is that the real numbers more or less totally disprove the theory behind the entire thread.
Considering that PJ is smug enough to state in the OP that he is done updating. I guess the real final numbers don't count.....
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Last updatehttp://politicalticker.blogs.c...ightly-higher-than-04/
end of threadA new report from American University?s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday?s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago ? or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.![]()
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you guys really that blind? He updated it last night. OK, so it's supposedly 3 instead of 2 but when he started the thread, it was correct according to ABC's reporting and when he updated it, it was correct according to the "reporting".
It's no different than you yokels who kept yapping about record percentage turnout when it's definately not the case. It was a media BS story that they WANTED to be true so they reported it.
Yes, only those 118,601 votes in Ohio (10 votes per precinct) that gave Bush all of that political capital in 2004 counted; everything else is irrelevant."Are you seriously implying there's no meaningful difference between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000, over a total number of voters that Bush crowed about as giving him "political capital" 4 years ago?"
Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you guys really that blind? He updated it last night. OK, so it's supposedly 3 instead of 2 but when he started the thread, it was correct according to ABC's reporting and when he updated it, it was correct according to the "reporting".
It's no different than you yokels who kept yapping about record percentage turnout when it's definately not the case. It was a media BS story that they WANTED to be true so they reported it.
Are you seriously implying there's no meaningful difference between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000, over a total number of voters that Bush crowed about as giving him "political capital" 4 years ago? All the sour grapes in the world won't blunt the historical significance of this election. Your party has become a rambling wreck, and Americans are sick of it.
Does this turn of events mean we won't be seeing endless :roll: and :laugh: in your posts, or is that too much to hope for?
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uhhh... what I stated was he did update it and it is/was correct when posted. You can whine all you want about him not updating it in the future but who the hell are you to tell him when he needs to update the title? Every time CNN changes their numbers? :roll: Get a grip. The whole point was - this election wasn't the massive uprising and "record" it was sold by the media as. Sure, there will likely be more votes cast and percentage wise it was good historically but it wasn't a record percentage.
And no, don't worry, you'll still have the :roll: and :laugh: to get your panties in a bunch as I don't plan to go anywhere.
Also, "sour grapes"? WTF are you yapping about? The FACT is, the turnout wasn't as big as "the media" tried to claim it was. So while this election has "historical significance" due to BHO's race - it certainly isn't what the media was trying to claim it was(which they are now backing away from).
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Looks like this election will be the 3rd highest total in history.
In order:
1) Kennedy election
2) Johnson election
3) Obama election
All Dems.
![]()
