Obama got 3 million more votes than Bush in 2004

[ProfJohn]

In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes

In 2008 Obama received 62.9 million votes, just over a 1% increase. (that number has changed a lot. But overall turnout did not increase by much)

McCain on the other hand received 3+ million LESS votes than Kerry.

Suggests several things:

Turn out was lower than in 2004.

McCain lost because he lost the people who voted for Bush in 2004, and about half of those voters don't seem to have voted at all.

Despite all the talk about turn out and increased enthusiasm that doesn't seem to have shown up on election day.

Look at the total votes cast in the past three elections:
2000 105 million votes
2004 122 million votes
2008 118 million, as of 1130AM

I wonder how the media will spin this news.
I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

Update
Updated the thread title to make the cry babies happy.
I made this thread at 11:45 AM this morning and used what data I could find at that time, the numbers have gone up a bit since then.

But think about this...
In 2000 Bush got 50 million votes
In 2004 he got 62 million votes. A HUGE jump in total votes.

This year Obama beat Bush's total by only 2 million, about a 3% increase.

There was a HUGE jump in turnout between 2000 and 2004, but this year there seems to have been a very little increase in turn out. Unless there are millions of votes still waiting to be counted.

Last update
http://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

Updated Obama's total again...

And my main premise has NOT changed.
Voter turnout was flat or just slightly better than 2004.
AND there was virtually NO difference in the number of first time voters in 2008 v. 2004.

 

[ScottyB]

He won by a huge margin. Republicans lost this election big time. Get over it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Puss

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Obama barely got more votes than Bush in 2004
Topic Summary: Turnout looks to be lower too

I wonder how the media will spin this news.

I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

You are a sad and pathetic

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He won by a huge margin. Republicans lost this election big time. Get over it.

He is just trying offer some analysis.


If the data is correct, he makes an interesting point.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Obama barely got more votes than Bush in 2004
Topic Summary: Turnout looks to be lower too

I wonder how the media will spin this news.

I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

You are a sad and pathetic

Oh, the ironing.

 

[Pens1566]

He also won by 5% or ~7million votes which is something bush never did ......

 

[MrChad]

I'm a little surprised that turnout was lower this year. I wonder how much of that can be attributed to a) voters outside of swing states believing that candidate A or B was a foregone conclusion or b) fear of long lines.

I haven't heard the media talk about voter turnout much at all.

 

[Baked]

Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He won by a huge margin. Republicans lost this election big time. Get over it.

Yes he did win.

But the media story seems to be wrong.

Black turnout looks to have only gone up by 1%.
Youth turnout looks to have only gone up by 1%.

And overall turnout went DOWN.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Baked
Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

Oh the irony...

Seems that for years and years after both 2000 and 2004 the left tried to argue that Bush did not actually win.

Now it seems that Obama won, thus all discussion must stop. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Jesus what is with all the auto-trolls in this thread? Is there something wrong with looking at the number post election? I for one do find it interesting that voter turnout was down. This was hyped up by the media and parties as the biggest election in decades and that there was a huge and I mean huge new voter push. Either there wasnt a new voter push that was successful or it didnt makeup for people who didnt vote at all.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Baked
Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

Oh the irony...

Seems that for years and years after both 2000 and 2004 the left tried to argue that Bush did not actually win.

Now it seems that Obama won, thus all discussion must stop. :roll:

The difference is that 2000 was a true squeaker, and '04 was closer than it should have been with superdouche Kerry.

The Obama victory is decisive and dramatic. Obama could have given up a couple million votes and still won.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Baked
Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

:roll:

I think the discussion of voter turnout is an interesting one, regardless of who one. Considering this election was hyped as the most significant in decades, it surprises me that turnout did not exceed 2004. Although 2004 already saw a significant increase in turnout from past years.

 

[nageov3t]

Bush called his wind a sweeping mandate.

 

[Thump553]

PJ: Obama won by the largest margin for a Dem since LBJ in 1964-and LBJ was running against Goldwater, who was considered to be a nutcase (or close to it) by most moderates at the time.

Any reduction in turnout here is solely due to the extremely poor turnout by the GOP-I've seen figures that the GOP was down 30-40% (not sure if that was just my region or not).

The ward I worked at had at least two dozen Dem volunteers, many of whom stayed all day. I was the only out of state Dem volunteer. The GOP turned out about 8 volunteers all day, at least half of which were from out of state. The GOP frequently had positions vacant because of lack of personnel.

I never saw any GOP volunteers bringing voters to the poll all day, which is an absolute first for me (by either party) in the years I have participated at the polls. Frankly, the GOP was disspirited and their get out the vote efforts absolutely stunk. And this was in a so-called battleground state, New Hampshire-one that McCain appeared in on Sunday.

EDIT: PS, PJ do you have a link for your figures?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In 2004 Bush received 62 million votes

In 2008 Obama received 62.9 million votes, just over a 1% increase.

McCain on the other hand received 3+ million LESS votes than Kerry.

Suggests several things:

Turn out was lower than in 2004.

McCain lost because he lost the people who voted for Bush in 2004, and about half of those voters don't seem to have voted at all.

Despite all the talk about turn out and increased enthusiasm that doesn't seem to have shown up on election day.

Look at the total votes cast in the past three elections:
2000 105 million votes
2004 122 million votes
2008 118 million, as of 1130AM

I wonder how the media will spin this news.
I believe they are still saying this election had the highest turnout ever.

Exactly. McCain had 4 mill less votes than Bush got in '04. Yes, some switched over to BHO but with new voters as they were not all the 4 mill switched. Many stayed home or did like me and voted for neither(3rd party). Basically McCain didn't get the "base" like Bush did and he probably lost a some of the "moderates"/"independents" who Bush had.

Overall, the (R) turnout looks to be lower which is a big part of the McCain loss.

 

[Arkaign]

CAD, I think it's just the opposite. The base came out like clockwork for each side. McCain didn't lose the base, he lost the independents and moderates.

 

[Deliximus]

Probably b/c there are some Repubs that didn't turn out.

 

[marketsons1985]

CNN's reporting that 97% of the votes are in. If 97% of the total is ~118 million, then the total is closer to 122 million.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Deliximus
Probably b/c there are some Repubs that didn't turn out.

simple explanations elude Projo the clown.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Many people simply stayed home or voted 3rd party. Enthusiasm about Obama was mainly generated amongst Democrats themselves, moderate Republicans and Independents sat out this one which is why turnout isn't as high as we expected.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985
CNN's reporting that 97% of the votes are in. If 97% of the total is ~118 million, then the total is closer to 122 million.

cali is still only at 90% reporting, NH is like 85%, and washington is like 56% and Oregon is like 65%

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Baked
Barrack Obama won the election. /thread

Oh the irony...

Seems that for years and years after both 2000 and 2004 the left tried to argue that Bush did not actually win.

Now it seems that Obama won, thus all discussion must stop. :roll:

To be fair: Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but not the electoral vote. Considering the hanging chad/ trailing chad / Supreme Court nonsense in Florida, there was a case to be made that Bush did not actually win a mandate from the people.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
CAD, I think it's just the opposite. The base came out like clockwork for each side. McCain didn't lose the base, he lost the independents and moderates.

Then where did the 4 million votes go? When you look at the new voters(mostly BHO votes) you know there were "lost" votes on the "(R)" side. When you look at McCain who is certainly more centrist than Bush was it makes no sense to suggest 4 million "moderates" abandoned him.