Obama got 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
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.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
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.
Not only that; think of the legions of people 14-17 years old who will be of voting age by 2012.

The GOP is essentially non-existent to the college age crowd.

The booming Latino population will only get larger, and they also break for Obama 70/30.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I don't see anything interesting here.
You didn't look hard enough.

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.
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.

What the numbers tell us is that Palin was not enough to motivate the Republican base, and McCain did a poor job of courting independents, who for this election, swung to Obama.

Yes Obama won a decisive electoral victory, but look at the states he changed from red to blue...Democrats want to believe that the country is changing, and they will be able to maintain their majority till the end of time...the data does not support this worldview.

What the numbers tell us is that America is weary of Republican control, and had a nasty little economic crisis to remind them of why it is perhaps time for a change...there is still a relatively even partisan divide in this nation, and we need a President who will bridge this gap.

Trouble is already brewing for Obama...look at the current fight stirring within the Democrat ranks for control of the energy and commerce committee...which sets the stage for a policy disagreement between liberal Democrats seeking to take aggressive measures to save the environment versus Democrats who count auto industry blue collar workers as their constituents.

The GOP is essentially non-existent to the college age crowd.
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 booming Latino population will only get larger, and they also break for Obama 70/30.
They broke for Obama...that does not correlate to a break for Democrats in every election from now till eternity.

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.
What numbers are you looking at...there was a 2% increase from 2004 to 2008.



 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
It's bad enough Projo the clown is wrong but, positing that his assertion is correct... what the fuck is his point?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
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?

It's what he does....

/enjoy the defeat, PJ - and if you keep on the same track - then enjoy more of it.....
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


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.
What numbers are you looking at...there was a 2% increase from 2004 to 2008.

You fail at math. Going from 11 to 13% is not a 2% increase in one groups vote, it's a actually an 18.18% increase. Sure, if you place it in a national context with EVERY vote, it was a 2% of the overall vote increase, but 2/11*100 = 18.18% increase in black vote.

By the way, this is absolutely a piss poor attempt by the OP to marginalize an ass kicking by Obama over McCain, regardless whether Obama drew more to the polls or McCain drew less, and the numbers are still coming in making the OP look more foolish (as he usually does in many of the posts of this type over time).

Finally, I don't know why anyone would think that their party would grab power for the end of time (Rove told the world 4 years ago that the shift to the GOP would last forever), this map shows the shift from GOP towards Democrats from 2004 to 2008.

Click me.

N.Y. Times map graphic alone.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY
GOOOD BYEEEEE

NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY
GOOOD BYEEEEE

NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY
GOOOD BYEEEEE

NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY
GOOOD BYEEEEE

 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Many of you are being too hard on PJ here. He never said Obama's victory wasn't decisive. He was simply pointing out statistics which show that 2004 to 2008 turnout did not increase to the level implied by media and election hype, and certainly not as compared with 2000 to 2004. Frankly, this is pretty interesting. It does appear that many Repubs stayed home and at least a part of the base wasn't impressed with McCain (I'm not surprised since he's not a true conservative by his record, he didn't run a very good campaign at all, and his VP pick was a disaster).
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Current Obama total is 62,975,682

Almost 3 million more than Dubya in 04.

Update OP?

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that Obama would still have won in each of the following scenarios:

1. Throw out the Under 30 vote

2. Throw out the hispanic vote - that would flip a few states out west

From Chuck Todd on NBC
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Current Obama total is 62,975,682

Almost 3 million more than Dubya in 04.

Bush had 62 million votes in 04.

EDIT: Obama has 64,957,682, not 62,957,682. So yes, Obama has nearly 3 million more votes than Bush had.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
CNN

Obama: 64,975,682

And counting...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
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.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
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/
A 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.
end of thread :)



 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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/
A 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.
end of thread :)

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.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
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.

:p
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
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?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Let's wait til the votes are in. My Board of Elections is STILL COUNTING VOTES! Of course, this is Florida, and little blue haired ladies can be slow at times. But, I have Matilda whipping them into shape and chewing up the hanging chads. ;)

-Robert
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"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?"
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. ;)



 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
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?

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).
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
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).

No sour grapes? Bwahahahaha! That really does merit a :laugh:. You're a peach, CAD, a real peach.

I guess what I'd like to see from you are the kind of thoughtful posts you wrote 4-5 years ago, but I guess since that doesn't seem to be in the cards I'll just have to get used to the endless stream of :roll: and :laugh:.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
and in hundreds of cities, voter registration and turn-out was the highest it's ever been...
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81
Here's an interesting Link from "gasp!" Obamanation-MSNBC that shows that while the youth vote was a factor, but the main one that put Pres-elect Obama over the top was AA voters.

As an aside, at first I was quite angry about the whole outcome of this election, but sanity has checked in and I'm willing to give the new guy a 4 year chance to see if he lives up to his promises.