Obama got 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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).

"Correct when posted"? That's a ridiculous defense, since he wasn't just posting numbers, he was drawing absolute conclusions from incomplete data. That's pretty stupid, and as it turned out his conclusion was predictably incorrect as a result. I don't think it's too much to ask that when someone makes a factual claim that they back it up.

In any case, the story is (and always has been) that NEW voter registration was at record levels, not that the overall turnout would be way up. I can't seem to find good numbers at the moment, but I'd be very interested to find out how much turnout was new voters compared to 2004. The story was that Obama helped drive a lot of NEW voters to the voting booth on election day, the overall turnout doesn't address that, because it's not controlling for previous voters who stayed home.

Of course the real reason for this thread is to find some way for Republicans to cushion the blow of Obama beating McCain so badly. Comparisons to Bush's vote total in 2004 have little to do with ProfJohn's point about turnout, the point is obviously to compare Obama to Bush instead of to McCain, to make Obama look less successful. But consider that his victory over McCain was by 8 million votes, while Bush's "mandate" over Kerry was only 3 million. I'd say Obama did just fine.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

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:.

:roll: You keep trying to claim you know what I feel or think and you've been shown time and time again to be wrong. I did not support McCain(despite your repeated attempts to claim I did) and yet you think me posting about numbers is "sour grapes"? Puhfugginleeze.

Yeah, I too would like to see you return to how you posted 4-5 years ago but since that doesn't seem to be in the cards, I'll just have to get used to the endless lies and apologisms coming from you. :roll: next?...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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:.

I genuinely wonder if CAD didn't vote McCain just so he could pretend he wasn't on the losing team this year in P&N. I said it before and I'll say it again, CAD's a die-hard Republican and his party lost big time.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

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:.

:roll: You keep trying to claim you know what I feel or think and you've been shown time and time again to be wrong. I did not support McCain(despite your repeated attempts to claim I did) and yet you think me posting about numbers is "sour grapes"? Puhfugginleeze.

Yeah, I too would like to see you return to how you posted 4-5 years ago but since that doesn't seem to be in the cards, I'll just have to get used to the endless lies and apologisms coming from you. :roll: next?...

The only way for you two, is paintguns at dawn. Prepare yourselves!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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:.

I genuinely wonder if CAD didn't vote McCain just so he could pretend he wasn't on the losing team this year in P&N. I said it before and I'll say it again, CAD's a die-hard Republican and his party lost big time.

I imagine he did just that. Meanwhile I have no earthly idea what "endless lies" of mine he's alluding to.

CAD, you want to provide examples of the "endless" times I've lied here? Even one example? Or is that just pure libel? I am aware of none. Can I assume that if you can't find any (which you won't), you'll apologize for calling me a liar? I've never said anything like that about you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
The only way for you two, is paintguns at dawn. Prepare yourselves!

Works for me - I'm a crack shot!

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

The numbers don't change the premise. As previously mentioned, the media made the wrong assumptions about the source of Obama's strength.

If the youth vote and Hispanic vote did not tip the scales for Obama, and the surge of African American votes secured his victory, then the Democrats have a problem in terms of sustainable support.

The numbers do support this assertion...the youth vote essentially remained flat from 2004 to 2008...Hispanics changed their allegiances, but that will change depending on the stance that Obama takes once the immigration debate comes back to the forefront.

Of course, these concern will be irrelevant if Obama has a successful Administration.

 

[mshan]

"We?ve devoted a lot of attention the three-legged stool of support that Obama received from African Americans, Hispanics, and voters 18 to 29. NBC?s Ana Maria Arumi projects what would have happened if you had removed one of those legs. When Arumi re-ran the numbers to eliminate all voters under 30, the only states that switched into the McCain column were the narrowly won states of Indiana and North Carolina. If there were no Latinos voting, both New Mexico and Indiana would have switched into the McCain column. However, in the make-believe world where African Americans wouldn't have voted, Obama would have still won most of the states that he won -- but McCain would have taken the swing states of Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Those 107 electoral votes would have then been enough to flip the race. The most important thing to take away from this little experiment: Obama's coalition was much broader than the conventional wisdom suggests." Link

So, even if the RNC had successfully suppressed every single African American vote in the United States, McLame would have still only have won 281 - 257 (assuming he held onto Missouri by his 6000 vote margin and Omaha Nebraska had been flipped in his favor, too).

A lot of whites voted for Obama, and you can argue over which other constituency (youth, Latinos, African Americans) put him over the top, but there were obviously many redundant paths to victory and McLame couldn't capture a single one of them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A lot of whites voted for Obama, and you can argue over which other constituency (youth, Latinos, African Americans) put him over the top, but there were obviously many redundant paths to victory and McLame couldn't capture a single one of them.

Yes, a lot of whites did vote for Obama, and from a social progression standpoint, that is perhaps the most encouraging bit of data to emerge from this election.

Pundits, experts and analysts will obsess over the data for months to come...the bottom line is that McCain fell into the same trap as Hillary in attempting to challenge Obama's message...and his VP choice of Palin was not enough to motivate the Republican base, and it alienated the independent voters that shifted to Obama.

McCain failed to engage the voters he needed to win this election anchored on policies to address the economic concerns at the forefront of everyone's mind.

Obama was the right candidate with the right message and the right strategy at the right time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
In any case, the story is (and always has been) that NEW voter registration was at record levels, not that the overall turnout would be way up. I can't seem to find good numbers at the moment, but I'd be very interested to find out how much turnout was new voters compared to 2004. The story was that Obama helped drive a lot of NEW voters to the voting booth on election day, the overall turnout doesn't address that, because it's not controlling for previous voters who stayed home.

Did you miss my link to the CNN exit polling of 2004 and 2008??

The number of "new voters" or first time voters according to the exit polls is the exact SAME this year as in 2004.

11% of people who voted Tuesday were voting for the first time. In 2004 it was the same 11%.

All that talk about new voters turned out to be wrong.

And whoever made the point about going from 11% to 13% represented an 18% increase on AA voters was correct.

I would not argue that the increase in black or youth voter turnout made the difference though. Added together the increase in both groups amounts to only 3% of the total electorate and Obama beat McCain by 6-7 points. So the youth and AA vote gave Obama a 3 point bump and whites, hispanics and us old people gave him another 3-4 points on top of that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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:.

I genuinely wonder if CAD didn't vote McCain just so he could pretend he wasn't on the losing team this year in P&N. I said it before and I'll say it again, CAD's a die-hard Republican and his party lost big time.

Wrong. I'm a die-hard Conservative and had no real choice this election so I ditched the pragmatism that got us Bush(not as Conservative as he suggested he was). Don't like it - tough- you can stick to your little fantasy land where you can "wonder" all you want.
Need more "wonderment"? Go find a post where I suggested I supported McCain for President.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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:.

I genuinely wonder if CAD didn't vote McCain just so he could pretend he wasn't on the losing team this year in P&N. I said it before and I'll say it again, CAD's a die-hard Republican and his party lost big time.

I imagine he did just that. Meanwhile I have no earthly idea what "endless lies" of mine he's alluding to.

CAD, you want to provide examples of the "endless" times I've lied here? Even one example? Or is that just pure libel? I am aware of none. Can I assume that if you can't find any (which you won't), you'll apologize for calling me a liar? I've never said anything like that about you.

Nope, you and other have repeatedly tried to claim McCain was my guy and you've been repeatedly told that was not the case. Your continued posting that he's my guy is a lie as you've been told the truth on many occasions.
But you too can relegate yourself to "wonder" land if you must.... have fun with each other...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
In any case, the story is (and always has been) that NEW voter registration was at record levels, not that the overall turnout would be way up. I can't seem to find good numbers at the moment, but I'd be very interested to find out how much turnout was new voters compared to 2004. The story was that Obama helped drive a lot of NEW voters to the voting booth on election day, the overall turnout doesn't address that, because it's not controlling for previous voters who stayed home.

Did you miss my link to the CNN exit polling of 2004 and 2008??

The number of "new voters" or first time voters according to the exit polls is the exact SAME this year as in 2004.

11% of people who voted Tuesday were voting for the first time. In 2004 it was the same 11%.

All that talk about new voters turned out to be wrong.

And whoever made the point about going from 11% to 13% represented an 18% increase on AA voters was correct.

I would not argue that the increase in black or youth voter turnout made the difference though. Added together the increase in both groups amounts to only 3% of the total electorate and Obama beat McCain by 6-7 points. So the youth and AA vote gave Obama a 3 point bump and whites, hispanics and us old people gave him another 3-4 points on top of that.

You're right about the overall voter increases, and honestly I'm a little disappointed. However, while I think the voting as a whole wasn't any kind of record shattering thing, I think Obama had some good voter results.

 

[HomerJS]

Here is what really counts...

Difference in electoral votes

2000 4
2004 35
2008 201

Almost a 580% change over 04

Looks like a landslidian shift to me. Nuff said.

 

[ProfJohn]

You want to see a first term landslide??

Here you go a real landslide.

A 440 electoral victory?

 

[Ferocious]

The demographic that is increasing in our country (non-whites) showed up a lot more in this election.

Hate is disappearing slowly....and the Christian right is slowly losing its grip. And more and more people want a goverment that is fiscally responsible.

The long term future for the GOP doesn't look too rosy.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Here is what really counts...

Difference in electoral votes

2000 4
2004 35
2008 201

Almost a 580% change over 04

Looks like a landslidian shift to me. Nuff said.

Yup, bottomline.

 

[mshan]

With all the problems Jimmy Carter faced that year, it's hardly surprising that he was soundly beaten by Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in the presidential election of 1980. What is remarkable is that just a week before Election Day, the contest was a dead heat. "People think of the 1980 election as this huge landslide for Reagan, which in terms of the numbers, it was," remembers journalist Elizabeth Drew. "But I saw the numbers on the Friday before the election -- and both sides will tell you this -- it was a tie."

in a cruel accident of fate, the election coincided with the one year anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran. As Hertzberg explains, "I think what happened was that people finally realized that it really wasn't going to get any better, that the hostages probably weren't going to get released, and if they were released, it would be so close to the election that it would look like some kind of suspicious political something-or-other."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/c...opleevents/e_1980.html




edit: found this while googling for 1980 inflation growth rate unemployment carter reagan: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
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:.

I genuinely wonder if CAD didn't vote McCain just so he could pretend he wasn't on the losing team this year in P&N. I said it before and I'll say it again, CAD's a die-hard Republican and his party lost big time.

I imagine he did just that. Meanwhile I have no earthly idea what "endless lies" of mine he's alluding to.

CAD, you want to provide examples of the "endless" times I've lied here? Even one example? Or is that just pure libel? I am aware of none. Can I assume that if you can't find any (which you won't), you'll apologize for calling me a liar? I've never said anything like that about you.

Nope, you and other have repeatedly tried to claim McCain was my guy and you've been repeatedly told that was not the case. Your continued posting that he's my guy is a lie as you've been told the truth on many occasions.
But you too can relegate yourself to "wonder" land if you must.... have fun with each other...

Bwahahahaha! First, I don't know that I've ever said McCain was "your guy" (not that I give two shits who "your guy" is), but in any case you've been clear that Obama is NOT "your guy." If you're going to call me a liar for that, I'm going to call you a libelous moron. Regardless, you are a sore loser (in that your party was spanked, whether or not you are a McCain supporter) of the highest order.

 

[Engineer]

Obama now stands about 4.7 million votes more than Bush.

Obama: 66,744,472
McCain: 58,272,729

Total votes for those two over 125 million now. Estimates of between 1.6-2.0 million for third party candidates.

Around 127 million and rising.

Obama also picked up another electorial vote from Nebraska.

Considering that Kerry had 59,028,109 in 2004, looks like Obama is going to up that by over 8,000,000 votes when all is said and done. Looks like the Dems brought in tons of new votes and the GOP fell on their face bringing the OP to the conclusion that the election was flat.

So far, the Dems have picked up 7,716,363 more votes than 2004 or 13.07% MORE votes than the previous election.

Total vote so far (all candidates): 126,596,145

Source.

 

[Engineer]

Obama currently 5+ million votes over Bush 2004.

Total votes so far (all candidates): 127,134,674 and rising.

Democrats 2008 vs 2004.

59,028,109 in 2004
67,065,402 in 2008

Increase: 8,037,293 vots
% increase: 13.62%

 

[First]

Even after horribly inaccurate predictions by the OP, he can't even get known facts right. No surprises here.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
1) Hate is disappearing slowly....2) and the Christian right is slowly losing its grip. 3) And more and more people want a goverment that is fiscally responsible.

The long term future for the GOP doesn't look too rosy.

I'm all for number 1 and 2, but it's depressing that 3 applies to Democrats. When Democrats are the fiscally responsible party, something is f'ed up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan
Even after horribly inaccurate predictions by the OP, he can't even get known facts right. No surprises here.

Idiot...

This thread was made the day after election day and all the figures were 100% right at the time.

We are now 2+ weeks past that point and another 5 million votes have been counted so the figures have changed.

Get over it.

BTW let this thread die already. No one had touched it in over a week until Engineer decided to revive it.

 

[First]

^ rofl. You should have from following prior elections that millions of additional votes take weeks to count. Guess you lied about your age too.